Intentional harm

Intentional harm to a neighbour has been prohibited by § 226 of the 1900 German Civil Code which provides that ‘The use of a right is not permitted when it can only have the purpose of causing harm to another’. French law about the same time adopted the idea that one was not allowed to abuse one’s rights as owner, for example by placing tall spikes at the edge of one’s land so that balloons could not land on a neighbouring field (a case of 1915). The Dutch Supreme Court adopted a similar result in 1937. Van Stolk hated his neighbour, Van der Goes. In order to annoy Van der Goes, Van Stolk first erected poles with pieces of cloth on his land to destroy the view of Van der Goes. Van der Goes went to court and obtained an order to remove them. Undeterred, Van Stolk then built a water tower in exactly the same spot as the poles, allegedly to water his land, and so destroys the view of Van der Goes again. The Supreme Court found this to be just spite and an abuse of rights.

By contrast, English law took the view that, as long as you have a right to do what you are doing, your intention to harm your neighbour is irrelevant. Farmer Pickles drained his own land in such a way that water no longer flowed into Bradford Corporation’s reservoir. The House of Lords held in 1895 that he had a right to use the water on his land, even if this harms landowners downstream, and so the Corporation could not obtain an order to prevent him continuing to divert the water away from their land. But other English cases did restrict what landowners could do to harm their neighbours.

I've heard of stinking your neighbours out, but this is ridiculous.