Claim for nuisance successful Held: That as occupiers of the land they were liable in nuisance, they knew of the nuisance and allowed it to continue, it did NOT matter that they hadn't created it
1 of 5
Fearn v Tate Gallery
Claim was unsuccessful Held: use of land was consistent with character of the area, significant factor was it being in an urban environment with significant tourist attraction
2 of 5
Sturges v Bridgman
Claim in nuisance was successful
What would be a nuisance in one area would not necessarily be a nuisance in another
3 of 5
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbloton Fireworks Ltd
Claimants sued in private nuisance and were successful, there was actionable nuisance even though it only lasted 20mins
4 of 5
Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris
Claimant bought an action in nuisance for interference but was unsuccessful, no one else affected by use of land so not regarded as unreasonable
5 of 5
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Claim was unsuccessful Held: use of land was consistent with character of the area, significant factor was it being in an urban environment with significant tourist attraction
Back
Fearn v Tate Gallery
Card 3
Front
Claim in nuisance was successful
What would be a nuisance in one area would not necessarily be a nuisance in another
Back
Card 4
Front
Claimants sued in private nuisance and were successful, there was actionable nuisance even though it only lasted 20mins
Back
Card 5
Front
Claimant bought an action in nuisance for interference but was unsuccessful, no one else affected by use of land so not regarded as unreasonable
Comments
No comments have yet been made