At 5pm every afternoon the setting sun shines on Moseby Architect’s building sending the glare into Gruinhalt’s house, causing him to lock himself into his bedroom for an hour every afternoon’ Moseby Architects building is seen to have a one side mirrored effect, because Gruinhalt’s house is situated at the top of the hill and Moseby Architects is at the foot of the hill, this is when the glare becomes a nuisance to Gruinhalt

Nuisance, a broad legal concept including anything that disturbs the reasonable use of your property, endangers life and health or is offensive (Doesen, Harris, Brock, Field, Amarisio and Smith, 2007, PG298). An inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort physically of human existence, not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober, simple notions among the English people (Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary 1983, P236).

The general main factor of private nuisance is to disrupt your enjoyment of your property, therefore, it can be seen that case of Gruinhalt v Moseby Architects, has a relation to private nuisance because Gruinhalt claims that he has to lock himself away for an hour every day, thus disrupting his enjoyment of land.

In the tort of nuisance, it is one of strict liability. This means that once the damages and causation have been proven, it is no defence to argue that you'd taken all reasonable precautions. Strict liability simply means that it determines whether a person is legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions (Wikipedia, 2011). But causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect (Wikipedia, 2011).

In the case of Gruinhalt v Moseby Architects a defence that could be used for Gruinhalt to be able to justify his case and gain more compensation would be strict liability. Moseby Architects is legally responsible for the damages caused to Gruinhalt, even though it may not be reasonably predicted, it still is a result of the company’s actions. Gruinhalt has the right to enjoyment of life and if Moseby Architects are impacting and not allowing him to enjoy life and to feel safe in his own home than Gruinhalt should be able to receive compensation and the safety and enjoyment of his home again

Private nuisance cases Remedy – interim injunction

In the case of Raciti v Hughes, it clearly states that an interim injunction was the remedy that was given to Raciti. Also in the case of Sturges v Bridgman, 1879, an interim injunction was the remedy given in the case. Both of the cases relate to Gruinhalt v Moseby Architects. Therefore it will allow Gruinhalt to be given a remedy of an interim injunction and a small amount of compensation. Interim Injunction can be simply explained as when in court, it is a simple ‘temporary restraining order’ until the court case verdict has been established, which then allows the nuisance to be changed or removed so it won’t be a problem anymore. This shows that Gruinhalt has the right for Moseby Architects to change their buildings plans with the windows because it clearly affects Gruinhalt every day.

Possible remedies available would be a small sum of money to compensate when Gruinhalt has had to lock himself in his bedroom for an hour every day. Therefore a sum of $1000 - $5000, would compensate for that issue. It is believed that Gruinhalt would like Moseby Architects to invest in different windows so that the glare will not continue to ruin Gruinhalt’s living space, and he can live in peace. Therefore it has been resolved that Moseby Architects will pay Gruinhalt a small sum of money as compensation, and change the mirrored features on their building.