Private Nuisance

HideShow resource information
What is the definition of Private Nuisance?
" the unlawful interference with a person's use of land"
1 of 15
What is the first test?
Nature of the locality
2 of 15
What happened in Leeman v Montague? ( NL)
The claimant lived in a largely residential area. C was regualrly disturbed the crowing of 750 cockerels on D's land about 90 metres away.
3 of 15
What is the second test?
The duration of the harm
4 of 15
What happened in Crown River cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks?
Held a 20 minute firework display. Held it did not consitute an unlawful nuisance. The more long lasting the interference, the more likely the nuisance is to be unreasonable. The duration may not need to last too long.
5 of 15
What is the third test?
The sensitivity of the claimant
6 of 15
What happened in Robinson v Kilvert
D carried out a business of making paper boxes. It was not an unlawful intereference since the brown paper was " sensitive" and normal borwn paer would not have been affected. D was not liable.
7 of 15
What happened in Mc Kinnon Industries v Walker?
The claimant's orchids were damaged and his enjoyment of his land was affected by the fumes and sulphur dioxide gas from D's factory. D was not liable for the damage to the orchids since gorwing them was of a delicate operation.
8 of 15
What could C claim for in Mc Kinnon?
C's right to ordinary enjyoment had been infringed and therefore he could claim for sensitive activity.
9 of 15
What is the fourth test?
Interference with recreational amenity
10 of 15
What happened in Hunter v Canary wharf
The claimants lived in the Isle of Dogs and complained that the erection of Canary Wharf interefered with their television reception. 690 claims were brought against Canary Wharf ltd.
11 of 15
Why was Canary wharf ltd not liable?
Some of the claimants were children living with parents. Some were lodgers with the use of a room. The claimant must have interest in the property to bring a claim an unlawful nuisance.
12 of 15
What is the fifth test?
The motive or malice of the defendant
13 of 15
What happened in Christie v Davey?
Claimant was a music teacher who lived in a semi-detached property adjoining D's property. D had complained of the noise on many occassions and took to banging of the walls. It was an unlawful intereference, D's action were motived by malice.
14 of 15
What happened in Hollywood Silver Fox farm v Emmett
D discharged his gun to frighten the claimant's pregnant ilver fox, causing her to miscarry. The defendant had the intention of preventing the silver foxes breeding. It was an unlawful nuisance.
15 of 15

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What is the first test?

Back

Nature of the locality

Card 3

Front

What happened in Leeman v Montague? ( NL)

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What is the second test?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What happened in Crown River cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks?

Back

Preview of the front 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 »