Case Brief Wiki


Bryant and Lefever are neighbours. Originally, Bryant was able to have a fire in any room of their house without the chimney smoking, however Lefever rebuilt his house and a new wall caused the Bryant's chimneys to direct smoke inside their house. The lower court found in favor of Bryant and assessed £40 as damages as the wall sensibly and materially interfered with the comfort of human enjoyment and Lefever appealed.


  1. To what extent does the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas apply?


Appeal allowed, damages reversed.


The judge states that there is definitely a nuisance present; however, it is not of the appellant's causing. He says that it is the respondant who causes the nuisance to himself by lighting the fires, and suggests that he either cease to light his fire, or modify his chimney to prevent the smoking. The appellant's do not infringe on the maxim as they are only interfering with the air, and not the respondant's property.


This is a similar situation to Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation v Forty-Five Twenty Five, Inc. and affirms that interfering with the air in a neighbour's property through a reasonable use of one's own property does not constitute a nuisance.