The defendants had a residential lease on a property where they produced chickens or eggs, or both. Over time their business rapidly expanded and they erected sheds to house approximately 10,000 chickens in 1440 cages. This was despite the terms of their lease prohibiting the building or structures or farming of animals.

The claimant in this case was the neighbour from the adjoining property, who claimed the noise, smell and polluted water produced by the defendants mounted to a nuisance and impacted her quality of life.

The court acknowledged a lack of relevant environmental legislation under which a claim for public nuisance may have been brought. This meant that the claimant could only bring an action in the tort of private nuisance, for the defendants’ interference with her use and enjoyment of her land.

Evidence was led that the egg-laying chickens produced approximately one tonne of faeces per day, which generated a considerable smell. They were kept in small cages with up to seven birds per cage. It was not clear how the waste was removed. The court accepted that on the balance of probabilities, the deterioration in quality of the neighbour’s bore water was likely linked to the defendants’ farm.

The Court found in favour of the claimant, given that they were in a residential area and the defendants had deliberately created a business, which consisted of intensive farming, egg laying chickens organised on an industrial scale. It was held that the claimant had the right to enjoy her home free from interference by noxious odours, noise and pollution of the defendants.

 (Summary provided by Chloe Foyster from the Queensland University of Technology)