Prima facie, C could bring an action against D under the heading of Private Nuisance.
1 of 16
Define the Tort
Private nuisance can be defined as an activity which unlawfully interferes with a person’s ability to use his own land (or rights over it) in a reasonable way for a substantial length of time.
2 of 16
1. The Claimant
C must show he has the right to bring an action and that D who he is suing is capable of being a defendant. C must be someone with a legal interest in affected land, e.g. owner or tenant, see Hunter v Canary Wharf.
3 of 16
2. The Defendant
Next, it must be proved that D who he is suing is capable of being a defendant. The obvious defendant is the owner of land and creator of nuisance, e.g. homeowner or business owner.
4 of 16
3. Interference and Damage
Next, C will need to prove that the nuisance caused an interference with or loss to the affected land. Interference covers situations where there is not necessarily only physical damage to the land but C’s ability to use or enjoy his land is restricted b
5 of 16
4. Unlawfulness
(E4) Next, C will need to prove D’s actions were unlawful. Here, the court will need to balance the conflicting interests of the two parties. The test is whether nuisance interferes with ordinary existence, i.e. whether impact on C is so unreasonable th
6 of 16
^^Factors of Reasonableness - Locality
The first factor that the courts may take into consideration is locality. Essentially, the nuisance will be acceptable in an industrial zone but not in a residential area, see Halsey v Esso. On the facts,...
7 of 16
^^Factors of Reasonableness – Duration
The next factor the court may consider is duration. The more something happens, the more likely it will be a nuisance but it is worth noting that even a single event can amount to a nuisance, see Spicer v Smee. On the facts,…
8 of 16
^^Factors of Reasonableness – Degree of Interference
The more serious or worse an interference, the more likely it is to be a nuisance. If physical damage to land is involved, the threshold is lower, whereas if there is a loss of enjoyment, the threshold is higher, see Murdock v Glacier Metal. On the fact
9 of 16
^^Factors of Reasonableness – The Sensitivity of the Claimant
If it can be shown the claimant is particularly sensitive, then the action may not be a nuisance, see Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity. On the facts,…
10 of 16
^^Factors of Reasonableness – Malice on the Part of the Defendant
Another factor that the court may consider is malice on the part of D. If D deliberately does something with no purpose other than to annoy C, D’s malice can make unlawful something which might not otherwise be a nuisance, Christie v Davey. On the facts,
11 of 16
^^Factors of Reasonableness – Social Benefit
If it is considered that the defendant is providing a benefit to the community, the court may consider the actions reasonable, see Miller v Jackson. On the facts,…
12 of 16
^^Prescription
This is a defence that is unique to nuisance. Prescription may be a defence to a nuisance action – if the action has been carried on for at least 20 years, and there has been no complaint between the parties in that time, then the defendant may be said t
13 of 16
5. Remedies ^^Damages
In the case of physical damage, damages are awarded for consequential damage to land, plants buildings and goods. In the case of loss of use and enjoyment, the damages are equal to the loss in value to the land, see Hunter v Canary Wharf. On the facts,…
14 of 16
5. Remedies^^Injunction
Until the case of Coventry v Lawrence the most common remedy for a nuisance claim, and the point of bringing an action, was an injunction. This would generally be prohibitory, ordering the defendant to stop causing the nuisance. The injunction could be
15 of 16
5. Remedies^^Abatement
A further remedy available to a claimant in nuisance is ‘abatement’. This could involve entering the defendant’s premises in order to prevent further nuisance. On the facts, C is likely to go down the road of abatement because…
16 of 16
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Private nuisance can be defined as an activity which unlawfully interferes with a person’s ability to use his own land (or rights over it) in a reasonable way for a substantial length of time.
Back
Define the Tort
Card 3
Front
C must show he has the right to bring an action and that D who he is suing is capable of being a defendant. C must be someone with a legal interest in affected land, e.g. owner or tenant, see Hunter v Canary Wharf.
Back
Card 4
Front
Next, it must be proved that D who he is suing is capable of being a defendant. The obvious defendant is the owner of land and creator of nuisance, e.g. homeowner or business owner.
Back
Card 5
Front
Next, C will need to prove that the nuisance caused an interference with or loss to the affected land. Interference covers situations where there is not necessarily only physical damage to the land but C’s ability to use or enjoy his land is restricted b
Comments
No comments have yet been made