Heymans v Reilly

The case of Heymans v Reilly involved a dispute between neighbours over alleged nuisance caused by the defendants' construction of a concrete spoon drain and kerb on their access road, which runs parallel to the plaintiffs' property boundary. The plaintiffs claimed that the construction of the drain led to a deepening of a channel beside the concrete road edge, which they alleged constituted a nuisance. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that a pond, partly on their land and partly on the defendants' land, also created a nuisance. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues the court had to determine were whether the defendants' construction of the drain and kerb constituted a nuisance and whether the pond created a nuisance.

The court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated an actionable nuisance as there was no evidence of actual damage to their property or substantial and unreasonable interference with their enjoyment of their property. The plaintiffs had only suffered minor erosion, which was not enough to constitute a nuisance. Furthermore, the court found that the pond existed prior to the subdivision of the land and there had been no relevant change, hence no nuisance was caused by the pond. The plaintiffs had only requested injunctions in their address, but the court found that since no actionable nuisance had been established, injunctions were not available. The court also noted that while seven different orders could be made, there was no evidence to suggest that the orders sought by the plaintiffs were appropriate.

The court gave verdict and judgment in favour of the defendants against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs on the ordinary basis until Thursday 5 September 2013 and thereafter on an indemnity basis. This decision highlights the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate actual damage or substantial and unreasonable interference with their property enjoyment to establish a nuisance claim.