public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission

done was reasonably required given that purpose. 73 The test appears to be the
same as for the tort of private nuisance. 74
How long?
2.35 We have seen above 75 that a public nuisance may consist of a single act as
opposed to a course of conduct. It seems, however, that most cases of public
nuisance consist either of a continuing series of acts or a continuing omission, or
of a single act with an effect that lasts for a significant time. 76
The fault element
2.36 The fault element of public nuisance is discussed in detail in Rimmington and
Goldstein, 77 which also gives some account of the earlier cases on the subject.
The fault element was the main issue in the Goldstein half of the appeal.
2.37 The facts of Goldstein were that Mr Goldstein, a supplier of kosher food in
Manchester, sent a cheque to one of his suppliers, enclosing a small quantity of
salt as a joking reference to the age of the debt, salt being commonly used as a
preservative. It was also intended as an allusion to the then current anthrax
scare, which the two men had discussed on the telephone shortly before. At the
sorting office, the salt leaked: the postal worker, suspecting it to be anthrax,
raised the alarm and the building was evacuated, causing the work of the office to
be disrupted and the second postal delivery of the day to be cancelled.
2.38 The House of Lords affirmed 78 that the correct test was that laid down in
Shorrock, 79 namely that
the defendant is responsible for a nuisance which he knew, or ought
to have known (because the means of knowledge were available to
him), would be the consequence of what he did or omitted to do.
However, they held that this test was not satisfied on the facts of Goldstein, as
there was no reason to suppose that he knew or should have known that the salt
would leak, even if he knew or should have known that if the salt leaked, the
probable consequences were the ones which occurred. 80
2.39 They specifically declined 81 the invitation to disapprove Shorrock and substitute
the recklessness test in R v G. 82 On the facts, this made no difference to the
result. We discuss that test fully in Part 5 below: for the moment, it is sufficient to
73 Wheeler, The Times 17 December 1971.
74 For this, see Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (19 th edition) para 20-35 and cases there cited.
75 Para 2.13.
76 See the list of instances in Smith and Hogan, para 32.2.1.1 (pp 1089-90).
77 Rimmington, paras 39, 56.
78 Rimmington para 39 (Bingham), 56 (Rodger)
79 [1994] QB 279.
80 Rimmington, para 40 (Bingham), 57 (Rodger).
81 Rimmington, para 56 (Rodger).
82 [2003] UKHL 50, [2004] 1 AC 1034.
16