Hi all,

For those who think that 'a continuing state of affairs' is (or should
be) essential in an action for nuisance, how would you judge the
sufficiency of the necessary continuity?
How long would a state of affairs have to continue to take it out of
the realm of the 'isolated incident'?
Would it depend on the gravity of the invasion of the rights of the plaintiff?

There are obviously issues about consistancy and like cases being
treated alike here, on the border line. I suppose it could be said on
the other side that the same concerns arise in the current law in
determining what 'isolated incidents' constitute a nuisance.

Surely, the current law does at least address the question of
principle: 'Does a particular 'isolated incident' deserve to be
classed as a nuisance?' If continuity became a requirement in all
circumstances, I think there is a danger that question could be
obscured by the more formalistic issue of 'how long is long enough'?

Best wishes

G