What aspect of duration is significant in determining a nuisance in Harrion v Southward and Vauxhall Water?

In the context of determining a nuisance, particularly in the case of Harrion v Southward and Vauxhall Water, the aspect of duration that is significant revolves around the idea that a one-off event may not usually amount to a nuisance. This principle emphasizes that for a claim of nuisance to be substantiated, there typically needs to be a continual or repetitive interference with the use or enjoyment of land.

One-off events, by their nature, do not reflect a consistent disruption that would meet the threshold for nuisance. Courts often look for a pattern of behavior or a continuous state of interference when evaluating whether the conditions presented constitute a nuisance. This means that if an event is infrequent or occurs singularly without repeating, it is less likely to be actionable under nuisance law, as the disruption does not persist in a way that affects the enjoyment of property over time.

The other relevant aspects, such as the frequency of occurrences, considerable duration, and legacy land use, are important in their own right but don't capture the fundamental point that in nuisance law, the continuity of the interference tends to be a more critical factor than isolated incidents. Therefore, acknowledging that a one-time occurrence typically does not rise to the level of nuisance is central to understanding how duration plays