Nuisance – Unreasonable Interference with Use and Enjoyment of your Property
11 December 2024

A legal nuisance refers to a situation where an individual or entity engages in activities or behaviours that interfere with the use and enjoyment of another person's property or their right to live in a peaceful and healthy environment. The action for private nuisance protects a person’s right to the “use or enjoyment of an interest in land, or of some right over or in connection with it”.


Some common examples of private nuisances in New Zealand might include:

  • excessive noise: such as loud music, machinery, or construction work that disrupts a neighbour's peace and quiet
  • overhanging branches or encroaching structures: trees or buildings on one person's land extending onto another person's property
  • pollution: contaminated runoff from one property affecting the water quality of a neighbouring stream or river; or
  • offensive odours: odours emanating from a nearby factory, landfill, or agricultural operation that impact neighbouring properties.


Whereas trespass to land is confined to intrusions upon land that follow directly upon the defendant’s act, the tort of private nuisance provides a remedy in respect of indirect or consequential interference with land. In addition, while trespass to land is actionable per se without proof of damage, nuisance, as an action on the case, requires proof of actual or imminent harm. Private nuisance is defined as a recurrent or persistent activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with the claimant’s land, or with their use or enjoyment of that land.


In order to constitute an actionable nuisance, the interference with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of land must be substantial and unreasonable. Almost all human activity involves some risk of harm, discomfort, or annoyance to others, and everyone must put up with a certain level of such interference as a normal and accepted incident of living in an organised society in close proximity to others. The function of the tort of private nuisance is to strike a fair and workable balance between the conflicting claims of neighbouring occupiers of land, “each invoking the privilege to exploit the resources and enjoy the amenities of his property without undue subordination to the reciprocal interest of the other”.


The appropriate balance is struck by reference to the standard of “unreasonableness”. Sometimes, this standard is expressed as a principle of “reasonable user”, which emphasises the right of every occupier to put land to any ordinary and reasonable use, having due regard to the fact that there is a neighbour, and asks whether the defendant has abused or exceeded that right. More often, it is expressed in terms of the neighbour’s right to be free from an unreasonable level of interference with the protected interest in the use and enjoyment of land. The court asks whether the interference suffered exceeds what a normal occupier in the plaintiff’s position could reasonably be expected to tolerate.


The right to the beneficial use and enjoyment of land is an expansive one; therefore, actionable harm takes a wide variety of forms. It may consist of encroachments from the defendant’s land, as where tree branches overhang neighbouring land or tree roots grow into a neighbour’s soil. Physical damage to the land itself, or to plants growing on the land, or to buildings and structures on the land obviously interferes with the occupier’s right to use and enjoy their land and qualifies as actionable harm. Causing an occupier to suffer personal discomfort from smells, smoke, or noise may also constitute an actionable nuisance. Private nuisance covers a wide range of harms, but the key unifying feature of the tort resides in the general kind of harm that is caused rather than any particular class of conduct.


To establish a legal nuisance claim in New Zealand, the following elements generally need to be proven:

  • interference: the activity or condition in question must interfere with the use and enjoyment of the affected property or affect a significant number of people
  • unreasonableness: the interference must be unreasonable, meaning that a reasonable person would find it objectionable or intolerable under the circumstances
  • causation: the defendant's actions or negligence must be the direct cause of the nuisance; and
  • damage or harm: there should be actual harm, loss, or damage suffered by the affected party.


Remedies for nuisances in New Zealand can include:

  • an injunction: court order to stop the offending activity or condition
  • damages: compensation for any harm or loss suffered by the affected party; and/or
  • abatement: the removal or elimination of the nuisance by the responsible party.


If you believe you are experiencing a legal nuisance or are accused of causing one, we advise you to consult with a lawyer who can provide guidance and assistance based on the specific circumstances of your case.


For more information, please contact Brett Vautier, Mitch Singh, Paul McKendrick, or Paul Kim.


7 July 2025
1 July 2025 We are delighted to announce the promotion of four high-performing staff to Associate; Jessica Perrett, Hope Horrocks and William van Roosmalen, and Danielle Moore to Associate - Registered Conveyancing Practitioner. All four are highly experienced legal practitioners who provide thoughtful, tailored advice and outstanding client service. The appointment is effective from 1 July 2025. Jessica Perrett Jessica is a solicitor in our Trusts, Estate Planning and Asset Protection team. With over 15 years of legal experience, as firstly a legal executive, then as a solicitor, she has an invaluable understanding of client needs. She delivers excellent outcomes for her clients and has a proactive and efficient approach. Hope Horrocks Hope is a solicitor in our Commercial Property team. She has several years of commercial experience prior to working in the law. She prides herself on undertaking the highest-quality work for her clients in a supportive, efficient and commercially minded-manner. William van Roosmalen William is an experienced litigator with a proven track record in resolving disputes of all shapes and sizes. He has worked in criminal prosecution, specialised in insolvency litigation, and more recently worked with a broad range of civil and commercial litigation. Clients appreciate William’s advocacy, highly responsive, relatable, and pragmatic approach. Danielle Moore Danielle is a Registered Conveyancing Practitioner in our Property team. She has extensive experience with residential conveyancing and a passion for property law. Her clients value her highly responsive, friendly and professional manner.
5 May 2025
Planning for the future means ensuring your assets are protected and your wishes are clearly set out. At Glaister Keegan, we provide tailored Trusts, Estate Planning & Asset Protection solutions to help you safeguard what matters most. Comprehensive and Personalised Estate Planning Protecting yourself and your assets from unforeseen events is an important consideration for many New Zealanders. At Glaister Keegan, we offer comprehensive estate planning services, including wills and enduring powers of attorney. As asset values increase and creditors become more aggressive, trust structures can also play a crucial role in asset protection. Tailored Solutions for Peace of Mind Our clients benefit from our extensive experience and the time we take to understand their circumstances and future goals. This personalised approach allows us to provide solutions that align with each client’s specific needs. Our in-depth knowledge of trusts and estates ensures your affairs are managed effectively, giving you confidence in the future. Flexible, Strategic Advice There is no one-size-fits-all approach to estate planning. We take the time to sit down with you, clarify your objectives, and develop the right structure to meet your needs. Our approach is strategic, adaptable, and designed to provide the best outcome for you and your family. Seamless, Comprehensive Support Estate planning often intersects with property and business matters. Glaister Keegan’s team works across these areas to provide seamless, well-rounded advice. We are large enough to offer a full range of services yet small enough to ensure a personalised experience. The beginning of the year is a great time to review your estate planning documents and ensure they reflect your current wishes and circumstances. If you haven’t updated your will, enduring powers of attorney, or trust structure recently, now is the perfect time to do so. If you need guidance or assistance, our team is here to help you navigate the next steps and ensure your plans are in place for the future.
5 May 2025
When a business is sold, employers must balance their legal duty to employees with the practical realities of making a sale. The Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) requires employers to keep employees informed about any changes that could impact their jobs and to give them an opportunity to share their thoughts and provide feedback before decisions are finalised. However, this requirement can be challenging when a business sale is involved. Why This Matters Selling a business is a complex process and almost always affects employees, because their jobs with the current employer typically end when the sale is completed. The law requires employers to discuss these potential changes with employees before making final decisions. However, sharing sale details too early can be risky for business owners, because it involves sensitive commercial information. Common Approaches After-Sale Consultation: Many businesses wait until a sale agreement is signed before discussing the impact with employees. This allows employers to protect confidential business details but does not fully meet the legal requirement for early consultation. Conditional Sale Agreements: Some businesses use conditional sale agreements, meaning the sale only goes through once certain conditions are met. This allows time to consult employees before the sale is finalised; although, it may not fully satisfy the ERA’s requirements. Protecting Confidential Information Employers are allowed to withhold certain confidential details from employees if sharing them would harm the business. However, they must have a valid reason for keeping information private. Confidential information, in this case, refers to details shared under an expectation of secrecy. Finding the Right Balance Balancing transparency with business interests is challenging. While employers must act in good faith by informing and consulting employees, they also need to protect the business. Exploring different approaches, such as conditional sale agreements, can help businesses navigate this tricky situation while staying as compliant as possible with employment laws. Recent Case Law The above issues have been addressed by the Employment Court in 2024 in Birthing Centre Limited v Matas . The Court of Appeal subsequently declined the appeal against the findings brought by the Birthing Centre Limited. The case involved the acquisition of a private birthing centre by the MidCentral District Health Board (“MDHB”). The transaction resulted in the vendor closing its centre, terminating the employment of all midwives, with the MDHB offering them new employment. The MDHB requested that the employees not be informed of the negotiations due to confidentiality reasons and the terms of the agreement were only announced after the transaction was finalised. Although the affected employees were consulted about some terms and conditions of employment with MDHB, the termination and transfer of their employment was effectively concluded by the time they were notified. Several employees raised personal grievances for unjustified dismissal and breaches of good faith alleging they were not adequately consulted. The key focus of the arguments before the Employment Court were whether the threshold had been met allowing the vendor to withhold details of the sale until completion on the grounds that it was commercially sensitive. The Employment Court held that the vendor had failed to meet its obligations and concluded “a fair and reasonable employer could in the circumstances have considered options for exploring whether it could maintain the integrity of [its] commercial position as well as the DHB’s commercial position, while informing its employees of the proposal in a confidential way”. The Employment Court further held that the vendor had failed to: consider whether providing information to the union was viable on an embargoed basis; direct employees not to share information during the consultation process; include as a condition of sale that staff be consulted on a confidential basis and their view sought before the sale agreement became unconditional. Conclusion It is necessary to take into account basic employee rights when selling a business. Although it may be important to protect commercially sensitive information, employers need to look at ways to ensure that employees are kept informed about potential decisions which will affect their employment. A business will need objective evidence to justify maintaining confidentiality of information, including evidence of unreasonable prejudice to their commercial position which would occur if they did share information with employees prior to finalising a sale. If you have any questions or seek advice or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Brett Vautier or Stephanie Harris.
Show More