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
    • 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


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »