Nuisance

?
What is private nuisance?
Protects the C's right to use/enjoy his property
1 of 55
Who can sue in private nuisance?
Those with a proprietary interest in the land/right to exclusive possession which are affected by the D's nuisance eg: owners and tenants
2 of 55
Majone v Laskey
C was a mere licensee, couldn't bring a claim
3 of 55
Khorasandjian v Bush
COA granted injunction to prevent harassing phone calls to C, who lived at her mother's house, departure from the traditional approach
4 of 55
Hunter v Canary Wharf
HOL reaffirmed the traditional approach. Only those with a proprietary interest in land/right to exclusive possession could bring an action.
5 of 55
Pemberton v Southwark Ltd
Tolerated trespasser allowed to bring a claim because he had not yet vacated the premises he had been asked to leave.
6 of 55
Delaware Mansions v Westminster CC
Damage to land from root of a tree on council land violated the land's interest and C who moved in later could bring a claim
7 of 55
Jones v Llanrwst UDC
Landlords can sue when the damage in question would do permanent damage to his property
8 of 55
Khatun v UK
ECtHR said there is no distinction between those with and without proprietary interests in Art 8 ECHR
9 of 55
McKenna v British Aluminium
Neuberger J considered an extension to the nuisance standing rule through S6 HRA 1998
10 of 55
Professor Wright...
It is time for English Law to move beyond the straight jacket of the forms of action, so that the boundaries of private nuisance are determined by the link with one's home
11 of 55
How are claims brought in private nuisance?
Balancing exercise - it is a balance between the rights and interests of C and D
12 of 55
Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan
'A balance has to be maintained between the rights of the occupier to do what he likes with his own land and the rights of his neighbour not to be interfered with.' (Lord Wright)
13 of 55
Kennaway v Thompson
'...Intervention by injunction is only justified when the irritating noise causes inconvenience beyond what other occupiers in the neighbourhood can be expected to bear.' (Lawson LJ)
14 of 55
Reasonable User?
The question is objectively what the ordinary person would find it reasonable to have to put up with
15 of 55
Hunter v Canary Wharf
The law will not restrict what a person chooses to do with his/her land unless his/her interferences with his/her neighbour's land is unreasonable
16 of 55
Walter v Selfe
Mere personal discomfort is treated with latitude. 'The law won't protect elegant or dainty modes and habits of living.'
17 of 55
Southwark LBC v Mills, Baxter v Camden
The ordinary use of your home will not amount to a nuisance even if it discomforts your neighbour due to poor soundproofing/insulation
18 of 55
Benjamin v Storr
The interference must be more than trivial
19 of 55
St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping
L Westbury distinguished between physical damage and emanations causing substantial damage to the enjoyment of property. If it leads to emanations eg: dust, noise, light, courts will look at other factors to determine whether reasonable. NOL relevant
20 of 55
What is the nature of locality?
What the neighbourhood is like, established patterns of use, can change over time
21 of 55
Sturges v Bridgman
'What would be a nuisance in Belgrave square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey.' (Thesiger LJ)
22 of 55
St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping
'One should not expect to breathe the clean air of the lake district in an industrial town like St Helens.'
23 of 55
Gillingham BC v Medway Dock Co (old law)
Residents could not complain as planning permission changed nature of locality. Disused dock into 24hr commercial dock, area was so large
24 of 55
Coventry v Lawrence
'Planning permission normally of no assistance to a claim in nuisance.' Planning permission of racetrack does not go to nature of locality
25 of 55
Wheeler v JJ Saunders
Court said planning permission irrelevant, doesn't change nature of locality
26 of 55
Barr v Biffa Waste Services
Planning permission for a smelly waste disposal facility did not provide a defence
27 of 55
Murdoch v Glacier Metal
Predominantly industrial area. Absence of no other complaints was taken to mean the noise didn't go beyond what was expected from NOL
28 of 55
Cunard v Antifyre
'Private nuisances...are interferences for a substantial length of time by owners or occupiers of property with the use/enjoyment of neighbouring property' (Talbot J).
29 of 55
De Keyser's Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros Ltd
Intensity and magnitude of drilling in the night was so great that it went beyond what anyone might reasonably expect
30 of 55
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks
Nuisance was 20 min firework display causing damage to C's boat. Action for physical damage likely to succeed even when for a short period
31 of 55
Bolton v Stone
Isolated incidents of cricket balls being struck over the boundary was not enough to constitute a nuisance
32 of 55
Abnormal sensitivity?
D's nuisance must affect the ordinary C
33 of 55
Robinson v Kilvert
The heat wouldn't have affected ordinary paper. the C's paper was abnormally sensitive, the warm air did not amount to a nuisance.
34 of 55
McKinnon Industries v Walker
Other, less sensitive flowers would've also been damaged in the same way, therefore there was an actionable nuisance
35 of 55
National Railway Infrastructure v Morris (Soundstar Studio)
COA said studio made the premises abnormally sensitive, a recreational activity. Considered whether there would be a different outcome in the future due to the continuing impact of technology
36 of 55
Malice?
Can be evidence of an unreasonable use of land
37 of 55
Christie v Davey
D banged fists, trays, whistled and shrieked in response to C's music lessons. Not a legitimate use of D's property and was malicious. C succeeded in an injunction
38 of 55
Hollywood Silver Form Farm Ltd v Emmett
Injunction granted to stop D shooting on boundary between their land causing vixen to miscarry/kill their young. Malicious and unreasonable use of land.
39 of 55
Bradford Corporation v Pickles
D drained reservoir to diminish water supply next door so they would buy his land. This was a legitimate use of his land and did not amount to malice.
40 of 55
Who can be sued?
The creator of the nuisance (D), if cannot be traced; occupier or the landlord
41 of 55
Thompson v Gibson
D does not have to occupy the property to be sued
42 of 55
(i) occupier exercises control over the creator of the nuisance
Matania v Provicinal Bank - Cs sued occupier for noise/dust created by ICs
43 of 55
(ii) occupier in control/possession of the property
Cocking v Eacott - Could sue occupier as she could've evicted her daughter but chose not to and failed to stop the nusiance
44 of 55
(iii) occupier continues/adopts nuisance created by act of nature
Goldman v Hargrave; Leakey v National Trust - cut tree down to burn out after struck by lightening, fire spread. Sued for adopting/continuing nuisance created by act of nature
45 of 55
Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC (No2)
LA not liable for collapse of cliff supporting hotel as only a geological expert could've foreseen the likely extent of the damage
46 of 55
Williams v Network Rail Infrastructure
Nuisance may be caused by an inaction or omission. Failed reasonably to prevent interference with C's enjoyment of property
47 of 55
(iv) creator is occupier's predecessor in title
St Anne's Well Brewery Co v Roberts - only occurs where predecessor caused nuisance and current occupier kenos or ought reasonably to have known of the nuisance
48 of 55
Tetley v Chitty
LA let land in residential area to go-kart club, impliedly authorised and landlord could be sued
49 of 55
Smith v Scott
Let property to troublesome family with explicit clause that if cause nuisance, they are out. Family caused nuisance, held not authorised by the landlord
50 of 55
Hussain v Lancaster CC
Racism/vandalism by people living in council property. Conduct didn't emanate from their homes
51 of 55
Coventry v Lawrence (no 2)
If nuisance inevitable at the time it was let, and landlord knew that, held that landlord impliedly authorised this and could be sued
52 of 55
Brew Bros Ltd v Snax Ross
If nuisance arises from lack of repair, landlord cannot avoid liability by covenanting with a new tenant to undertake repairs
53 of 55
Mint v Good
May be express/implied right
54 of 55
S11 S12 LTA 1985
If landlord knows/ought to have known of a defect, he has a duty to repair and therefore has a duty to everyone who may suffer personal injury/property damage as a result of the defect
55 of 55

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Those with a proprietary interest in the land/right to exclusive possession which are affected by the D's nuisance eg: owners and tenants

Back

Who can sue in private nuisance?

Card 3

Front

C was a mere licensee, couldn't bring a claim

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

COA granted injunction to prevent harassing phone calls to C, who lived at her mother's house, departure from the traditional approach

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

HOL reaffirmed the traditional approach. Only those with a proprietary interest in land/right to exclusive possession could bring an action.

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 »