According to Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco, which type of interference does not constitute a nuisance?

In Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco, the court examined the concept of what constitutes a legal nuisance, particularly focusing on the nature of the interference with a property owner's enjoyment of their property. The case established that an interference must be substantial and unreasonable in order to be classified as a nuisance.

The correct answer indicates that the encroachment of a sign onto property does not meet the threshold for nuisance as defined in this context. This type of interference is generally considered minor and does not significantly impact the use or enjoyment of the property. In contrast, the other options involve issues that are likely to be viewed as more substantial intrusions—excessive noise, pollution, and blocked sunlight can all greatly hinder a property owner's ability to enjoy their space, making them more clearly actionable under nuisance law.

Overall, the decision in Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco sets a precedent that some interferences, particularly those that are minimal or trivial such as a sign encroachment, may not rise to the level of legal nuisance. This reflects the broader legal principle that only significant and unreasonable intrusions are actionable.