"The mere existence of smoke or the fact that a resident has been affected by smoke is not sufficient to establish unreasonable interference. Conversely, the fact that other residents are not affected by smoke (as is indicated in Secretary’s submission) does not necessarily mean that unreasonable levels of smoke do not exist. If even one person has been subjected to an objectively unreasonable interference, section 167 of the Act may be breached. However the key point, as highlighted by QCAT, is that the test of whether smoke is unreasonable is objective. It is not enough for an occupier to demonstrate the existence of smoke that is unreasonable to them – they must be able to present objective evidence that the smoke would be cause a substantial interference to the average person. That is why a person alleging a nuisance from cigarette smoke must be able to quantify the volume and frequency of the smoke and the degree of interference. The difficulty in the current case is that the applicant has provided little quantification of any interference that he has suffered from the smoke. His register indicates numerous days over the course of a three month period where he has noticed smoke at various times of the day. On some days he notices smoke once or twice, and on another it was as many as 10 occasions. On a few days he indicates that it has ‘disturbed’ his work or a meal. But there is little detail of how he has been disturbed or how the awareness of smoke has interfered with his use and enjoyment of the lot. On five occasions he has recorded that his sleep has been ‘disturbed’, including being woken up or having to get up to close windows and doors. But this seems to me to be scant basis to sustain an argument of a ‘substantial’ interference."