Who can sue in private nuisance: an interest in land is required (Hunter, confirmed in Fearn v Tate)

Private nuisance is a tort against land: it protects the use and enjoyment of land, and the claim belongs to the person with an interest in the affected land. In Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655 the House of Lords held that only a person with a proprietary interest in the land (or exclusive possession of it) can sue. The Supreme Court confirmed this in Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4. Mrs Okafor, as freehold owner in occupation, has the necessary interest and can sue for the substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of her house. Samuel, a family member living there by permission with no interest in the land, cannot sue in private nuisance, however much the noise and smells affect him. Damages in private nuisance are assessed by reference to the diminution in the amenity value of the land, rather than the personal discomfort of each occupier.

Why B is wrong: Hunter rejected the argument that mere occupation of a home is enough; an interest in the land is required.

Why C is wrong: Samuel has no interest in the land, so he cannot sue however much he personally suffers.

Why D is wrong: Interference with the use and enjoyment of a neighbour's land is classic private nuisance, whether or not others are affected.

Why E is wrong: Samuel has no standing in private nuisance at all, and personal injury is not recoverable in private nuisance in any event.