The classic definition of ‘nuisance’ was given in a 19th century case as ‘an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary physical discomfort of human existence’. So, for instance, an activity that causes excessive noise, dust or smoke might well be a nuisance.

‘Annoyance’ has no technical legal meaning, but it is clearly wider than ‘nuisance’. In another 19th century case it was described as anything which ‘really does bring an objection to the mind of a reasonable being’ or ‘reasonably troubles the mind and pleasure, not of a fanciful person or of a skilled person who knows the truth, but the ordinary sensible English inhabitants of a house’. Note that there need not be any ‘physical detriment to comfort’.

In practice, ‘nuisance’ and ‘annoyance’ are usually coupled together in a ‘nuisance and annoyance’ clause, which can wrongly lead to people regarding them as interchangeable. As the above definitions make clear, they are not – ‘annoyance’ is wider than ‘nuisance’. This is well illustrated by Davies [2009] where properties on an 1980s estate were subject to covenants not to do anything that would be a ‘nuisance or annoyance’ to the owners or occupiers of the other properties. One of the property owners got planning permission for a three-storey side extension to his property, but the court held that although this was not a legal ‘nuisance’, it was an ‘annoyance’, largely because it would block the highly valued view of the River Thames. The CA took the view that what amounted to an ‘annoyance’ should be decided on ‘robust and common sense standards’.

This case provides a neat illustration of the difference between nuisance and annoyance. Plus, it is a reminder to would-be developers that a ‘nuisance or annoyance’ covenant can prevent the erection of a new building. See ?Davies v Dennis & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1081 (noted in our January 2010 issue, p17); (access free at www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk).