Nuisance

?
  • Created by: K98
  • Created on: 24-05-17 15:33
Private Nuisance
"The very essence of private nuisance…is the unreasonable use of man of his land to the detriment of his neighbour" – Miller v Jackson
1 of 35
Malone v Laskey
Claimant needs a propriety interest in the land.
2 of 35
Khorasandjian v Bush
Family of home owner can claim
3 of 35
Hunter v Canary Wharf (Who can Claim)
A propriety interest is needed to claim, family of home owner cannot claim
4 of 35
Sturges v Bridgman
What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’ (Locality)
5 of 35
Robinson v Kilvert
the reasonable use of land would not become unreasonable merely because it affected someone with a particular sensitivity unless ‘it interferes with the ordinary enjoyment of life" (Sensitivity of the Claimant)
6 of 35
De Keyser's Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros
Duration and Timing of the Nuisance
7 of 35
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v. Emmett
Whilst the act was not unreasonable in itself, because the defendant did so with the aim of disrupting the lawful activities of his neighbour it rendered it unreasonable and an actionable nuisance. (Malice)
8 of 35
Hunter v Canary Wharf (Damage Caused)
Encroachment onto the neighbour’s land. Physical Injury to land. Interference with enjoyment of land.
9 of 35
Public Nuisance
Public nuisance ‘materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects’ – AG v PYA Quarries Ltd
10 of 35
Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd - Lord Denning
"A public nuisance was one which was so widespread in range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person . . . to put a stop to it but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the community."
11 of 35
Ruffell
Local communities, e.g. the organisation of an ‘acid house party’ in a field which disturbed local residents.
12 of 35
Castle v. St Augustine’s Links
Users of a public highway, e.g. all drivers potentially endangered by flying golf balls
13 of 35
Special Damage
A particular individual must prove that they suffer damage over and above the general inconvenience caused to the class. This requirement limits the multitude of claims that would succeed if public nuisance was actionable on the basis of interference
14 of 35
Kinds of Special Damage
Personal injury, discomfort or inconvenience. Damage to property. Economic loss
15 of 35
Defences - Effective - Statutory Authority
If the defendant’s actions were authorised by statute, it is likely to provide a defence -Allen Gulf Oil
16 of 35
Defences - Effective - 20 Year Prescription (Private Nuisance)
If a defendant has required a right to act in a way that constitutes a private nuisance because he has done so for 20 years without interruption. Sturges v Bridgman – the time period commences from the start of the nuisance and not the general act.
17 of 35
Defences - Ineffective - Coming to the Nuisance (Private Nuisance)
Miller
18 of 35
Defences - Ineffective - Utility (Private Nuisance)
Adams v Ursell
19 of 35
Defences - Ineffective - Jus Tertii (Private Nuisance)
Third Party Rights
20 of 35
Defences - Ineffective - Due to Many (Private Nuisance)
Lambton v Mellish
21 of 35
Defendant brought something onto their land which would do mischief if it escaped
"It must be shown that the defendant has done something which he recognised...or ought to have recognised, as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there should be an escape" - Transco Plc
22 of 35
The 'thing' brought onto the land escapes
Read v J. Lyons -This is a fundamental aspect of the rule; there must be an escape from A to B
23 of 35
An element of non-natural use
It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community.” Cambridge Water - Storing chemicals is an unnatural use
24 of 35
Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type
Damage must be foreseeable. Cambridge Water -. It was not foreseeable to the skilled person that quantities of the chemical would cause damage to the plaintiff‘s water and foreseeability of damage was a requirement of liability.
25 of 35
Who can sue in Rylands v Fletcher?
Cambridge Water - Need to have a propriety interest in the land
26 of 35
Defences - Default of the Claimant (Rylands v Fletcher)
If the damage is caused solely by the act or default of the claimant then there is no remedy -Ponting v Noakes
27 of 35
Defences - Act of a Stranger (Rylands v Fletcher)
Property (claimant on upper, defendants on lower)- a trespasser entered the defendants home and turned on the tap. This caused damage to the claimants house. -Rickards v Lothian
28 of 35
Defences - Act of God (Rylands v Fletcher)
The defence arises only where an escape is caused through natural causes and without human intervention. This will be a question of fact to be decided in each case. - Limited application
29 of 35
Defences - Statutory Authority (Rylands v Fletcher)
Statutory authorisation is a defence to a claim under Rylands v Fletcher for the same reasons as apply in nuisance (the law is the same). Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co - Escape of water. The company was under a statutory obligation to supply water.
30 of 35
Defences - Consent (Rylands v Fletcher)
If the claimant has permitted the defendant to accumulate the thing he cannot sue if it escapes. Implied consent will be sufficient.
31 of 35
Remedies - Injunction
A court order which stops the defendant from doing the act that has caused the nuisance
32 of 35
Remedies - Damages likely to be awarded instead of an injunction
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co – Damages awarded where the injury is capable of being estimated in money, an injunction would be too oppressive, where a money payment would be adequate and the injury to claimant's legal rights is small
33 of 35
Remedies - Damages
Public - Personal Injury, Economic loss, Damage to chattels (Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd). Private – compensation for the loss of value of the land, economic loss, damage to ‘chattels'. Remoteness Test - Wagon Mound
34 of 35
Remedies - Abatement
Delaware Mansions Ltd v Westminster City Council – self-help remedy
35 of 35

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Claimant needs a propriety interest in the land.

Back

Malone v Laskey

Card 3

Front

Family of home owner can claim

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

A propriety interest is needed to claim, family of home owner cannot claim

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’ (Locality)

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 Tort Law resources »