Law (University) - Nuisance Cases

Nuisance Cases. Description of the facts of the case or the rule deriving from the case. 

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: NewGirl.
  • Created on: 18-05-14 15:49
An advertising sign juts out onto the claimant's land. The claimant claims in nuisance for trespass and succeeds.
Kelsen v Tobacco Co.
1 of 46
The defendant's crane passes over the claimant's land. The claimant claimed in nuisance for trespass, where it was held that you have reasonable rights in your airspace.
Anchor Brewhouse v Berkley House
2 of 46
Dogs used in hunting, crossed into the claimant's land, although there were no fences put up, the claimant claimed in trespass and succeeded.
League against Cruel Sports v Scott
3 of 46
Extractor fan had protruded onto the claimant's land. Claimant claimed in nuisance for trespass and succeeded.
Laigat v Majid
4 of 46
Held that the claimant must have a legal interest in the land. The claimant must own/be a tenant of the land to have sufficient interest.
Hunter v Canary Wharf
5 of 46
The claimant's (shopowners) were subject to racial harassment by tenants of the defendant's housing estate. Held - the defendant was not liable = no nuisance. The defendant had not authorised the nuisance. Interference must be related to Defendant
Hussain v Lancaster City
6 of 46
A wrong-doer may also be liable to those without an interest in land. The defendant was liable for encroaching roots which led to subsidence of the property.Liable due to lawful control of the tree.
L.E. Jones v Portsmouth
7 of 46
Trespasser laid drain pipe in ditch in the defendant's land, pipe became broken and caused the ditch to flood and flowed into claimants land. Held, occupiers who create or adopt the nuisance can be sued.
Sedley-Denfield v O'Callaghan
8 of 46
Fire spreads onto the claimant's land from the defendant's land. The defendant is liable because he has a positive duty towards the claimant through the Sedley-Denfield Case.
Goldman v Hargrave
9 of 46
Claimant's house was at the foot of the defendant's hill. Claimant warned the defendant that there was cracking in the hillside. Defendant was liable, he was also the wealthiest landowner and could bear the loss of liability.
Leaker & Others v National Trust
10 of 46
Large rainfall had caused the defendant's sewer to flood and overflow into the claimant's house. At first D was liable,but then because it was a public amenity, damages should be distributed, and consumers should pay for its repair.
Marcic v Thames Water
11 of 46
Root interference from D's tree had caused cracking in a neighbouring building. D was given notice of this, and did not do anything to abate it. = liability
Delaware Mansions v Westminster
12 of 46
The D council owned the land between the hotel and the sea. A massive landslip took place on the cliff- the taken the lawn of the hotel with it. - D was not liable because it was unforeseeable.
Holbeck Hotel v Scarborough
13 of 46
The claimant's land was interfered with by travellers who had occupied the land owned by the council. Held that the D was liable because he allowed the land to be used.
Lippiatt v South Gloucester
14 of 46
The defendant let their land to a go kart company. The defendants were liable for the noise because the nuisance was a natural consequence of letting the land for this purpose.
Tetley v Chitty
15 of 46
The defendant tenants had a history of bad behaviour. The D had warned them. The defendant was not liable because he did not authorise the nuisance
Smith v Scott
16 of 46
D's main water pipe fractured and leaked water. Spread onto C's embankment causing it to collapse and left the gas supply unsupported. No liable as water supply is a natural use of the land.
Transco v Stockport
17 of 46
An unknown person blocked the sinks in the toilets and turned on the taps, causing a flood and damaging C's stock. No liability because it was an unforeseeble act of a third party.
Rickards v Lothian
18 of 46
Claimant complained of noise from neighbour's flat due to a lack of sound proofing. Held: no liability. C took flat with the knowledge that other tenants live normal lives.
Southwark LBc v Mills
19 of 46
Claimant claimed that the opening of a sex shop by the defendant close to his home would attract unpleasant clientele. Held: Depends on the locality of the area. It would devalue in that area but not in others.
Laws v Florinplace
20 of 46
Fumes from D's land damaged the claimant's trees. Injunction was granted because property loss meant that locality was not important.
St Helens Smelting v Tipping
21 of 46
Claimant claimed of interference from smoke and smell arising from burning of bricks by D. D Argued that it was for the public benefit. Held that it was not public benefit = liability.
Bamford v Turnley
22 of 46
Warm air used for D's business damaged the claimant's sensitive brown paper. Held: the air would not damage ordinary paper, so no liability for damage caused to abnormally sensitive claimants.
Robinson v Kilvert
23 of 46
The D manufactured steel and other products that released toxic fumed which damaged C's valuable and sensitive orchids. Held: the fumes would damage other plants, so liability is imposed despite sensitivity.
Mckinnon Industries v Walker
24 of 46
Electric interference with the circuit system for recording equipment.Held: no nuisance because the equipment was unduly sensitive and unforeseeable consequence of D's actions.
Network Rails v Morris
25 of 46
The C was a music teacher who taught her lessons at home from a semi-detached house. D complained but took to banging on the walls. Malicious interference negated his defence and held him liable for his actions.
Christie v Davey
26 of 46
The C bred special foxes who are prone to miscarriages when frightened. the D objected to the breeding of these so fired a gun to scare them. Held: liability because he was acting maliciously.
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
27 of 46
The D deliberately diverts water from neighbours land with the goal of getting them to buy his land. Held: although he was acting maliciously he was using his land lawfully.
Bradford Corp. v Pickles
28 of 46
Claimant authorised planning permission for work on dockway but later changed his mind. Held: no liability. Planning permission has not authority to authorise nuisance but it may alter the nature of the neigbourhood.
Gillingham v Medway Dock
29 of 46
The claimant leased the farm to the D, whom used it for breeding pigs. The C claimed against noise and smell. Held: liability for the smell, the planning permission did not change locality.
Wheeler v Saunders
30 of 46
The C brought an action against noise and pollution from the oil refinery. The refinary was authorised by statute. Held: D was not liable due to statutory authorisation.
Allen v Gulf Oil
31 of 46
Gas escaped and was ignited, causing a series of explosions and injuring 5 Claimants. Brought and action under Rylands v Fletcher. Held: No liability because gas was a wide-use utility.
Dunne v NW Gas
32 of 46
The D operates a noisy sweetshop. C knew of this noise, but still bought a flat nearby. Claimed that he could not get work done because of the noise; Held: liability for nuisance. Coming to the nuisance cannot stand as a defence.
Sturges v Bridgemen
33 of 46
The D ran a cricket field. C knew of this, but still bought a house nearby and got it for a lower price (controversial) complained of cricket balls in her garden. Held; liability. Coming to the nuisance cannot stand.
Miller v Jackson
34 of 46
The D diverted a natural stream to create artificial lakes. Heavy rainfall caused the lakes to flood and damage nearby land. Held: rain was an act of god = no liability
Nicholls v Marsland
35 of 46
Water contaminated by the D caused the claimant to bring a claim in negligence, nuisance and rylands v fletcher. Held: no liability because the damage caused was an unforeseeable consequence of D's actions.
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather...
36 of 46
Horses tethered on the street outside a cafe. Smell of horse manure blocked windows and caused cafe to be always dark. C lost business. Held: it was a public nuisance, but C showed special damages so received damages.
Benjamin v Storr
37 of 46
Ferry terminals on the Thames caused the river to silt up and the C could not use his jetty on the river. Held: it was a public nuisance due to public right of navigation. Suffered special damage, and received damages.
Tate & Lyle Industries v GLC
38 of 46
In an appropriate case, there may be strict liability for the escape of fire under Rylands v Fletcher - although this may be very rare.
Stannard v Gore
39 of 46
D's reservoir caused old mine shafts to collapse and flood into C's mine. Held: liable for the escape of something that is likely to cause nuisance if it should escape.
Rylands v Fletcher
40 of 46
C suffered personal injury after an explosion at work. Claimed under Rylands. Held: there was no escape.. No nuisance and no recovery for personal injury.
Read v Lyons
41 of 46
Australian case debated abolishing Rylands. Held that Rylands is too complicated. Case of Transco suggested to keep the rylands rule.
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones
42 of 46
C was injured when 2 boys threw a match into abandoned petrol tank and caused explosion. Held: D was not liable under rylands v Fletcher - explosion was caused by a 3rd party.
Perry v Kendrick Transport
43 of 46
Noise from air force base stimulated a claim in nuisance. Held: there is a public interest in operating the base = injunction was refused, but damages were awarded instead.
Dennis v MOD
44 of 46
D operated noisy racetrack 200 days a year. held: injunction granted. But should not be granted if it will be too oppressive on the D.
Watson v Croft Promosport
45 of 46
The electric company D's caused structural damages to a house and nuisance to occupier. Held: judge awarded damages but refused an injunction. Should only be awarded in exceptional cases.
Shelfer v City of London
46 of 46

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Anchor Brewhouse v Berkley House

Back

The defendant's crane passes over the claimant's land. The claimant claimed in nuisance for trespass, where it was held that you have reasonable rights in your airspace.

Card 3

Front

League against Cruel Sports v Scott

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Laigat v Majid

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Nuisance resources »