Abstract
A majority of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom rejected the idea that emanation is required for an action to be sustained in private nuisance. This rejection contrasts with dicta of the House of Lords and the New Zealand Supreme Court. In the presence of much uncertainty, I clarify the precise meaning of emanation and enquire whether emanation is a requirement in New Zealand’s law of private nuisance. I also explain the deficiencies in the "physical invasion view" of the tort of private nuisance, and I propose that a more convincing account of private nuisance focuses on the extraterritorial aspect of the control that a claimant exerts by successfully bringing an action against a defendant in private nuisance. Those cases involving emanations, and those founding support for an emanation requirement, appease the more fundamental concern about ensuring that a claimant cannot exert extraterritorial control too far.