Private Nuisance

?
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
Tenants sued for the nuisance caused by lost television signal. Amongst other things it was decided that a mere licensee could not sue.
1 of 21
Sedleigh - Denfield v O'Callaghan (1940)
Private nuisance is for an indirect interference with enjoyment of land like flooding. The D is liable if they are continuing nuisance caused by someone else. In this case the D was using a gutter with a badly placed grate.
2 of 21
Malone v Laskey (1907)
The C must have an interest in the land and cannot be the spouse of the owner.
3 of 21
Tetley v Chitty (1986)
An authoriser of nuisance can be sued. In this case the council for allowing a go kart track to be built.
4 of 21
Smelting v Tipping (1865)
The D was a smelting company who were letting off fumes. This lead to damage of the c's trees. It was an industrial area, and the company had been there a while, but neither prescription or locality worked since it was physical damage not discomfort.
5 of 21
Sturges v Bridgman (1879)
The C, a doctor built a consulting room attached to house. The noise from a local confectioner posed a nuisance to him. The D was liable and could not use locality or prescription as a defence as the time ran from the time the extension was built.
6 of 21
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock Co Ltd (1992)
Planning permission can change the locality of an area.
7 of 21
Barr v Biffa (2012)
At 1st instance it was found for the defendants, but this was reversed in the CoA. You can still cause nuisance whilst being within the scope of your permit.
8 of 21
Adams v Ursell (1913)
C was not enjoying the fish and chip chop smells in his posh area house. Although the shop was socially useful, it was still a nuisance.
9 of 21
Robinson v Kilvert (1889)
Only brown paper would be damaged by the heat - white would not. Unusual sensitivity is not accommodated.
10 of 21
Mckinnon Industries v Walker (1951)
The claim was allowed, because the fumes would have damaged any plant, not just the sensitive orchids.
11 of 21
De Keysers Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914)
The claim was successful because although the building works were temporary, they were continuing several months.
12 of 21
Bolton v Stone (1951)
No nuisance for one off instances. duration is needed to prove nuisance. The gold ball had only been hit that far 6 times in 30 years.
13 of 21
Crown River Cruisers Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks (1996)
A 20 minute firework supply was enough damage to justify a claim in nuisance.
14 of 21
Spicer v Smee (1946)
Nuisance was caused due to a state of affairs on the D's land. Faulty wiring caused a one off fire, but it was the continuing bad state of affairs.
15 of 21
British Celanese v Hunt (1969)
The place of storage caused an escape of the metal foils that caused a power cut that caused nuisance to the C
16 of 21
Christie v Davy (1893)
Banging pans to object to the noise caused by music lessons is malice and in nuisance, malice can cause an action to become unreasonable.
17 of 21
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett (1936)
Firing your gun on your own property is fine, but not in order to cause your neighbour's foxes to eat their young. Malice!
18 of 21
Coventry v Lawrence (2014)
The defence of prescription could not be used because although the neighbouring hoouses had been there for greater than 20 years there was no proof that the nuisance had been consistently bad in that time.
19 of 21
Metropolitan Asylum District v Hill (1881)
Statutory authority could not be relied on because the nuisance could be avoided by just building it further away.
20 of 21
Allen v Gulf Refining (1981)
It was decided that statutory authority could be used as a defence because parliament would not intend to licence a refinery being built, but not allowing it to be used.
21 of 21

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Private nuisance is for an indirect interference with enjoyment of land like flooding. The D is liable if they are continuing nuisance caused by someone else. In this case the D was using a gutter with a badly placed grate.

Back

Sedleigh - Denfield v O'Callaghan (1940)

Card 3

Front

The C must have an interest in the land and cannot be the spouse of the owner.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

An authoriser of nuisance can be sued. In this case the council for allowing a go kart track to be built.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

The D was a smelting company who were letting off fumes. This lead to damage of the c's trees. It was an industrial area, and the company had been there a while, but neither prescription or locality worked since it was physical damage not discomfort.

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 Law of Tort resources »