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
Back
Card 17
Front
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.
Back
Card 18
Front
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.
Back
Card 19
Front
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.
Back
Card 20
Front
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.
Back
Card 21
Front
Fumes from D's land damaged the claimant's trees. Injunction was granted because property loss meant that locality was not important.
Back
Card 22
Front
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.
Back
Card 23
Front
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.
Back
Card 24
Front
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.
Back
Card 25
Front
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.
