Nuisance Cases

?
  • Created by: Amy
  • Created on: 05-04-17 01:26
Kennaway v Thompson
Nearly all of us living in these islands have to put up with a certain amount of annoyance from our neighbours.
1 of 29
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan – balance of rights
A balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own land, and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with.
2 of 29
Rapier v London Tramways – strict liability
Liability may be imposed in nuisance even though D used reasonable care.
3 of 29
Hunter v Canary Wharf
690 residents claimed that the Canary Wharf development had caused substantial discomfort and inconvenience. Have to have an interest in the land – a mere licensee has no right to sue.
4 of 29
McKenna v British Aluminium
Relying on Article 8, Neuberger J refused to strike out a claim brought by over 30 children living close to a factory just because they had no proprietary interest in their home.
5 of 29
Thompson-Schwab v Costaki – exception to the emanation requirement.
prostitutes and their clients entering and leaving neighbouring premises.
6 of 29
St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping – the locality principle – unreasonable use of land
D’s pollution caused damage to trees and shrubs on Lord Tipping’s country estate. Interference which caused physical damage could never be reasonable.
7 of 29
Murdoch v Glacier Metal – locality rule
residents brought private nuisance proceedings against factory for night time noise and glare. Industrial character of the locality, this was not an actionable nuisance .
8 of 29
Robinson v Kilvert- abnormal sensitivity
heat sensitive paper in C’s property was damaged by heat rising from D's property. D was not liable - C takes the risk of engaging in a sensitive or risky business.
9 of 29
McKinnon v Walker – abnormal sensitivity
C could recover the full extent of the loss, including the damage to orchids which were particularly sensitive. Recovery was allowed because the interference was so substantial that it would have damaged plants of normal fortitude.
10 of 29
Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board interference with recreational use
TV reception not actionable in this case: ‘ I do not wish to be taken as laying down that in no circumstances can something which interferes merely with recreational activities amount to an = nuisance.
11 of 29
Frequency cases
Matania – temporary nuisance. Crown River Cruises – every 20 minutes could constitute nuisance. Rushmer v Polsue – what is reasonable in the day may become unreasonable if conducted at night.
12 of 29
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros Ltd – frequency
Court imposed a time restriction on the pile-driving to between 10 in the morning and 6.30 in the evening
13 of 29
Bolton v Stone – isolated events
The basis of the claim in nuisance is not the act of hitting the ball onto the adjoining land, but the activity of organising a game which creates a danger. The frequency with which the balls are hit out will indicate how dangerous the activity.
14 of 29
Castle v St Augustine Links
Gold club liable for public nuisance in maintaining a thirteenth hole parallel to the highway where much traffic passed.
15 of 29
Christie v Davey – malice
D's use of his house to make a noise was done maliciously and purely for annoyance –C was therefore granted an injunction.
16 of 29
Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather – foreseeability
D’s tannery had a chemical spill onto the concrete floor. It seeped down to an underground watercourse and then to the claimant’s borehole 1.3 miles away. The borehole was used by C as a source of drinking water. Not foreseeable, not liable.
17 of 29
Network Rail v Soundstar - abnormal sensitiveness
‘...it is difficult to see any further life in some particular rules of the law of nuisance, such as for instance the concept of "abnormal sensitiveness" from Robinson v Kilvert.’
18 of 29
Matania v NPB – non-delegable duty
Where nuisance is inevitable consequence of the work commissioned by D.
19 of 29
Coventry v Lawrence – landlord’s liability
landlords of stadium had not authorised or participated in nuisance just because it was foreseeable that the tenants motor racing could cause a noise nuisance.
20 of 29
Leakey v National Trust – liability of naturally occurring nuisances
Because of natural agencies, slides of soil and rocks from D’s hill threatened C’s cottage below. Subjective standard, the Ds were liable for failing to do something to prevent this known risk.
21 of 29
Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC – liability of naturally occurring nuisances
Applying the subjective standard, D was not liable as the magnitude of the landslip was unforeseeable. Confirms a different standard to liability in negligence. The subjective nature of the duty mitigates the harshness of the rule.
22 of 29
Sturges v Bridgman – prescription defence
The 20 years only runs from when the claimant knew or suspected the nuisance.
23 of 29
Wheeler v Saunders – statutory authority defence
Planning permission was to be distinguished from statutory authority and the former provided no immunity from nuisance claims.
24 of 29
Coventry v Lawrence – its not a defence to said C came to the nuisance
‘the notion that coming to the nuisance is no defence is consistent with the fact that nuisance is a property-based tort, so that the right to allege a nuisance should, as it were, run with the land.’
25 of 29
Lambton v Mellish – it is not a defence to say it was due to many.
no defence that D was one of many who contributed to the interference, even though D’s activities would not have constituted nuisance in isolation.
26 of 29
Miller v Jackson – the defence of public benefit
The Court of Appeal refused to grant an injunction against the cricket club on the grounds of ‘public benefit’ to the community.
27 of 29
AG v PYA Quarries QB – definition of public nuisance
an act or omission which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects.
28 of 29
Colour Quest Ltd and Ors v Total Downstream UK plc – relationship with private nuisance.
no interest in land is required for a public nuisance claim.
29 of 29

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

A balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own land, and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with.

Back

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan – balance of rights

Card 3

Front

Liability may be imposed in nuisance even though D used reasonable care.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

690 residents claimed that the Canary Wharf development had caused substantial discomfort and inconvenience. Have to have an interest in the land – a mere licensee has no right to sue.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Relying on Article 8, Neuberger J refused to strike out a claim brought by over 30 children living close to a factory just because they had no proprietary interest in their home.

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 »