‘Nuisance’ is still relevant in court
No fault is necessary
Many of us are familiar with the tort of negligence — an act or omission by one party that causes loss to another party. Inherent in a negligence claim is the concept of ‘fault’. A recent case illustrates why nuisance, a tort similar to negligence except that fault is not necessary, is still relevant.
Forest trees causing nuisance
Nottingham Forest Trustee Limited (NFT) owned land on which it had planted a commercial forest. Over a period from December 2010 to August 2016 pinus radiata trees growing in the forest, which had been planted many years earlier, fell onto two electricity lines owned and operated by Unison Networks. Unison’s customers experienced power outages while repairs were carried out, and Unison incurred costs as it repaired the damage.
Unison sued NFT both in negligence and in nuisance and sought damages to cover the cost of repairs and also an injunction to prevent future falls of trees.
Unison’s electricity lines crossed over the land while it was a sheep and beef farm, and the power lines were present when NFT acquired the land and planted the forest. In planting the forest, NFT left a corridor under each of the lines approximately 30 metres wide where it didn’t plant trees. The nearest tree to the power line at any point was about 15 metres away.
Over time, however, the trees on the edge of the corridor grew to a height that was greater than the distance from the line. Pinus radiata can grow to 30 metres high. In the High Court proceedings the judge found that by 2010 the trees planted on the edge of the corridor had grown taller than the full distance between those trees and the lines. In those circumstances, there was what the High Court judge described as “a very good chance” that the lines would be hit and damage caused if a tree fell; that started to happen from about December 2010 and again in July 2011. In 2013, a tree fell in a storm causing $20,000 worth of damage to a structure on the line and there were further outages as a result of tree falls in April 2012 and November 2014. In Unison’s view, NFT was liable for the recurring damage (this was in 2015) and wrote to NFT asking that the trees be cleared to prevent further damage. This was resisted by NFT, unless Unison agreed to pay compensation for the loss of the trees.
More tree falls in September 2015 and August 2016 resulted in further damage, with Unison writing to NFT again claiming significant repair costs. This was once again resisted by NFT. NFT’s response was basically that growing trees was a natural use of land; liability for tree falls required fault in tree management and as NFT had complied with the regulatory regime and conducted regular inspections and so on, NFT was not at fault.
Indeed the negligence claim was quickly dismissed by the High Court as Unison was unable to prove any particular fault on the part of NFT. Unison was, however, successful in its nuisance claim which in essence means if proven ‘strict liability’ follows, there is no need to establish fault. Both parties appealed the findings against them. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s original decision.
A nuisance is defined as ‘any ongoing or current activity or state of affairs that causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with a plaintiff’s land or their use or enjoyment of that land.’ Unison obviously didn’t own any land in the vicinity. It simply owned the power lines that ran over the land. The court, however, held that since a statutory right constituted an interest in land and as the owner of utility works it has the exclusive right to occupy the portion of the soil where the works lie to the exclusion of all others and as such the right was greater than a right given by virtue of easement or licence.
Further, the court said, even if an interest in the land couldn’t be proven, as a matter of policy the existence and importance of works must mean that Unison had sufficient interest to found an action in nuisance. In particular, the court found that NFT created a state of affairs that caused unreasonable and continuing interference with the lines, and was therefore strictly liable even if NFT took reasonable precautions.
What is important to establish in nuisance is to show that a landowner has changed the state of affairs on their land which then causes a loss or damage to either other land or someone with an interest in other land. In this particular case, the change was the planting of the forest where lines already existed on a sheep and beef farm.
A similar case would be, for example, where a landowner interfered with a waterway that resulted in flooding downstream. If the landowner hadn’t interfered or changed the path of the waterway and flooding occurred downstream, there could be no liability under nuisance because that was a natural state of affairs, but by interfering with that natural state of affairs, a nuisance is created.
This case serves as a warning that even where you are not at fault, if you do something on your land that alters its natural state and somebody else’s land (or operation) is affected, you could be liable.
 Nottingham Forest Trustee Limited (NFT) v Unison Networks Limited (Unison)  NZCA 227
DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Rural eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2021. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650