1.
That
the nuisance is materials
2.
That
the nuisance is interfering with the ordinary
comfort of causing inconvenience.
The following
case portrays the element of
interference in public nuisance: in the case of Vanderpant V Mayfair Hotel Co. Ltd (1929)
ALLER 296.
This was a case
where the defendant hotel operated opposite
the plaintiffs house. The plaintiff used
for public nuisance and for an
injunction to stop the defendant hotel
from obstructing the highway and access
to his premise, and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the
comfort of his house by noise arising
from his hotel, in the form of shouting, loud talking, in handling of kitchen,
or domestic utensils, milk chuns and other articles. The court held:
That the
plaintiff could maintain action for public nuisance having proved particular
damage which were direct and substantial.
Also in the case
of Tarry V Ashton (1876) I QBD 314.
In that case the defendant an owner of house abutting on a public road, erected
a protruding lamp over hanging the highway.
The court Held:
that the plaintiff could sue for
negligence, public nuisance and damages, and the defendant was liable.
The above authorities portrays nuisance as
interfering no matter how little the interference is /are.