Nuisance
- Created by: BethPilsbury
- Created on: 11-11-20 22:42
View mindmap
- Nuisance
- Private
- Who can sue?unlawful indirect interferences with person’s use of and enjoyment of land
- C needs proprietary interest in land; owner or tenant (Hunter V Canary Wharf)
- Who can be sued? Doesn’t need interest in land, person causing or allowing nuisance- Tetley V Chitty- may have ‘adopted’ nuisance failing to deal with it
- Nuisance resulted from natural cause they are aware of but fails to deal with-Anothony V Coal Authority- Liable, aware of problem while in control and failed to deal with it
- 1)indirect interference- frivolous claims not actionable-Hunter V Canary Wharf- ‘a thing of delight’ is not actionable in nuisance
- Emotional distress/moraloutrage- Thompson Schwarb V Costaki- sight of prostitues and clients entering and leaving held to amount to actionable nuisance as activity considered offensive
- 2) unlawful (physical, discomfort-unreasonable)- not illegal=reasonable, D does not need to be at fault. Actual physical damage is prima facile actionable (Halsey V Essa)
- A)sensitivity- D not responsible if abnormally sensitive-Robinson V Kilvert- paper exceptionally delicate, hot air not usually damage paper
- Exception- McKinnon industries V Walker- right to ordinary enjoyment had been infringed, c could also claim protection from his unusual activity
- B)locality- St Helen’s Smelty co V Tipping- personal discomfort=put up with common level to area. Damage to property- not expected to put up with
- Depends of character of area- Sturges V Bridgeman- area mostly doctors consulting rooms, nuisance in quiet area not necessarily one in busy one
- C)duration-noise at night more unreasonable than during day-Crown river cruise V Kimbolton fireworks- one offs only liable if damage
- D) malice-Christine V Davey- malicious motive made D’s conduct unreasonable
- Hollywood silver fox farm V Emmet- entitled to shoot, but had malicious motive
- E)public benefit-Cambridge water V eastern counties leather- loss but be reasonably foreseeable
- D’s fault irrelevant, C cant claim personal injury- tort against land not person
- Who can sue?unlawful indirect interferences with person’s use of and enjoyment of land
- Public
- ‘A clas’- PYA Quarries- mostly for road obstruction but could be for:picket line/noice and traffic at festival
- Tort:special damage to C-Benjamin V Starr- had affected all shopkeeps but prone to special damages as smell of horses put off customers
- Castle V St Augustine- confirmed special damages for personal injury can be claimed in public nuisance
- Personal injury- Corby group litigation V Corby borough council- not confined to loss of enjoyment of land, but unlawful acts or omissions that endanger safety, property or comfort or public
- Private
Comments
No comments have yet been made