← Back to blog

Public Nuisance for SQE1

Part of our SQE1 Tort Law guide → View the full SQE1 Tort Law guide

06 May 2026

Public nuisance sits at the boundary between tort law and criminal law, and SQE1 questions test whether you can distinguish it from private nuisance.

Public Nuisance

Tort Law > Public Nuisance

You encounter a fact pattern describing conduct that affects the general public, and you must immediately determine whether a particular individual can bring a civil claim - which requires 'special damage' over and above the harm suffered by everyone else. Public nuisance sits at the boundary between criminal and civil law, and SQE1 examiners test whether you understand this distinction.

What Is Public Nuisance?

Public nuisance is an act or omission that materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the public. It is primarily a crime, prosecuted by the Attorney General, but it can also give rise to a civil claim if an individual suffers 'special damage' - loss or harm over and above that suffered by the public generally.

Unlike private nuisance, public nuisance does not require the claimant to have a proprietary interest in land. Knowing private nuisance will help you understand the key distinctions, and understanding negligence duty breach causation and remoteness provides context for how these distinct torts operate.

Key Principles for SQE1

  • Definition (Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957]): A public nuisance is an act or omission that materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of Her Majesty's subjects.

  • Class requirement: The nuisance must affect a sufficiently large section of the public - whether a class is large enough is a question of fact (Attorney General v PYA Quarries).

  • Special damage: For a civil claim, the individual claimant must show 'particular' or 'special' damage - loss that is different in kind, not merely degree, from that suffered by the public at large.

  • No proprietary interest required: Unlike private nuisance, any person who suffers special damage can sue - they do not need an interest in land.

  • Examples: Obstructing a public highway, emitting harmful fumes affecting a neighbourhood, contaminating a public water supply, or creating a hazard on a public road.

  • Criminal and civil: Public nuisance is both a common-law crime and a tort. The Attorney General may bring proceedings on behalf of the public; an individual may bring a civil claim only by showing special damage.

  • Overlap with private nuisance: The same facts can give rise to both a private and a public nuisance claim if the interference affects both the claimant's land and the wider public.

Exam tip

Public nuisance is straightforward once you remember: it is a crime prosecuted by the Attorney General, but a private citizen can sue only if they suffer 'special damage'—harm different in kind, not merely degree, from what the public suffers. No proprietary interest is required. The key distinction from private nuisance: public nuisance needs a 'class' of the public affected; private nuisance requires land ownership/possession. Always check whether the claimant's loss is truly special damage or merely the same harm as everyone else.

How This Appears in SQE1 Questions

SQE1 questions test whether the claimant can establish a civil claim in public nuisance - which requires special damage beyond the harm suffered by the class as a whole. The trap is allowing a civil claim where the claimant's loss is the same as everyone else's. Questions also test the distinction between public and private nuisance - remember, public nuisance does not require a proprietary interest, but private nuisance does. This is a classic SQE1 trap.

Quick Example Scenario: A company's construction work blocks a public road for several weeks. All local residents are inconvenienced. However, one shopkeeper loses £20,000 in business because customers cannot reach her shop. The shopkeeper sues in public nuisance.

The obstruction of a public highway affecting a class of the public constitutes a public nuisance. The shopkeeper suffers special damage - a quantifiable financial loss that is different in kind from the general inconvenience experienced by other residents. She can maintain a civil claim in public nuisance.

Common Mistakes Students Make

  • Allowing a civil claim in public nuisance without establishing special damage - the claimant's loss must be different in kind from the public's.
  • Confusing public nuisance with private nuisance - public nuisance does not require a proprietary interest in land.
  • Forgetting that public nuisance is also a crime - it is not exclusively a tort.
  • Failing to assess whether the affected group constitutes a 'class' of the public - if only one or two individuals are affected, it may be a private nuisance instead.

Quick Summary

  • Public nuisance is both a crime and a tort affecting a class of the public
  • A private individual can sue only with special damage beyond the common injury
  • Special damage must be particular, direct, and substantial
  • The Attorney General can bring proceedings on behalf of the public
  • No proprietary interest is required — anyone suffering special damage can claim

Want to test this now? Try a few SQE1-style questions below before moving on.

Test Yourself

Test yourself

Quick check questions based on this article.

Question 1

Scenario

A construction company is carrying out works on a building adjacent to a busy high street. The works involve the regular transportation of heavy machinery along the pavement, which obstructs pedestrian access for approximately three hours each morning over a period of four weeks. During this period, a café owner whose premises are located on the same street notices a significant drop in customer footfall. The café owner estimates that her revenue has decreased by approximately 40% during the period of obstruction. Other businesses on the street have also experienced reduced footfall, though the café owner has suffered the most because her premises are closest to the obstruction. The construction company has obtained all necessary permits from the local authority for the works. A resident who lives above one of the shops has also complained that the noise from the machinery prevents her from sleeping until mid-morning. The construction company had offered to rearrange delivery times but the local authority permit specifies morning deliveries only. The café owner seeks advice on whether she has a claim in public nuisance against the construction company.

Which of the following best describes whether the café owner is likely to succeed in a claim for public nuisance?

Question 2

Scenario

A construction company is carrying out major roadworks on a busy urban street under a licence from the local highway authority. The works require the closure of one lane of a two-lane road for a period of eight weeks. The company has placed appropriate traffic signs and barriers along the works. A restaurant located on the affected street experiences a significant reduction in customer footfall during the roadworks. The restaurant owner estimates a loss of revenue of approximately £35,000 over the eight-week period. Several other businesses on the same street have also experienced reduced trade, though none to the same extent as the restaurant, which relies heavily on passing trade. The restaurant owner's accountant has verified the loss figures by comparing revenue with the same eight-week period in the previous two years. The restaurant owner had recently invested £20,000 in a new outdoor seating area, which cannot be used during the works due to dust and noise. The restaurant owner brings a claim in public nuisance against the construction company. The construction company argues that it was acting under statutory authority and that the works are being carried out in a reasonable manner.

What is the most significant obstacle to the restaurant owner's claim in public nuisance?

Question 3

Scenario

A building contractor is carrying out renovation work on a property adjacent to a busy public footpath. The contractor places scaffolding across part of the footpath without obtaining a licence from the local authority. The scaffolding forces pedestrians to walk onto the road to pass the building site. A pedestrian who is forced to walk on the road is struck by a passing vehicle and suffers a broken arm. The contractor's foreman had placed warning cones on the road near the scaffolding. Several other pedestrians had complained to the contractor about the obstruction over the previous two weeks, but no action was taken. The local authority had written to the contractor requesting that the scaffolding be moved or a licence obtained, but the contractor did not respond. The injured pedestrian is a regular user of the footpath and walks along it every day on her way to work. The contractor's public liability insurance is currently valid. The contractor has been operating from the site for approximately three weeks. The scaffolding extends approximately two metres onto the footpath, leaving insufficient space for pedestrians to pass safely. The pedestrian now brings a claim in public nuisance against the contractor.

What must the pedestrian establish, in addition to the elements of public nuisance, in order to succeed in a personal claim for damages?

Practice with full exam-style questions

Try DemoView Pricing

Related Topics

Practise Public Nuisance Questions for SQE1

Want to solidify your knowledge? ActusPrep provides realistic SQE1 questions tailored to this topic.

👉 Try our free demo: https://actusprep.com/demo 👉 View plans and pricing: https://actusprep.com/pricing