Private Nusiance 3.0 / 5 based on 1 rating ? AllUniversityNone Created by: JamilaCreated on: 09-04-13 00:21 Private Nusiance means the unlawful interference with a persons use of enjoyment of land, or some right over it, or connection with it. 1 of 28 PN looks at ... 1. Unlawful inteference with a persons use of land 2. Its unlawful 2 of 28 St Helens Smelting v Tipping Nusiance in both the physical damage, but also the amenity. 3 of 28 Three types of Nusiance 1. Enroachment 2. Interference with neighbours quiet enjoyment 3.Physical injury to land 4 of 28 Lemon v Webb Enroachment over the property 5 of 28 Delaware Mansions v Westminister CC Enroachment under the property 6 of 28 Factors when looking at claims Duartion and Intensity, Sensitive claimant, Locality, Motive 7 of 28 Duration and Intensity, De Keyers Royal Hotel v Spicers Bros hotel building affected by the noise going on and off. clai 8 of 28 Duration and Intensity, Kennaway v Thompson boat racing created excess noise. 9 of 28 Duration and Intensity, Spicer v Smee fire caused by faulty wiring created spread to the house. 10 of 28 Sensitivity of Claimant, Robinson v Kilvert special paper would be difficult to determine. sensitive not enough. 11 of 28 Sensitivity of Claimant, Heath v Mayor of Brighton Vicar complained that noise didnt help his sermons. 12 of 28 Locality - Sturges v Bridgman what would be a nusiance in Belgrave square is not so in Bermondsey. 13 of 28 Locality - Gillingham v Medway commerical port, cannot be changed. planning permission, noisy. 14 of 28 Locality - Ball v Ray claimants live in residential area, change into stables, not appropriate. 15 of 28 Material damage - St Helens smelting v Tipping argued that physical damage does not affect locality. Many businesses in the area, but didnt matter. 16 of 28 Social value - Smith v Grady trees in D land stopped light from entering stopped the growth. 17 of 28 Motive - Christie v Davey D lived next door to music teacher, made extra noise by banging pots together. He was unreasonable. 18 of 28 Motive - Hollywood silver fox farms v Emmett emmett fired gun shots during breeding season on purpose. 19 of 28 Dennis v Ministry of Defence the C lived near RAF training ground, had to leave it cos of public element. 20 of 28 Prevent inteference - Leakey v National Trust aware of the land slip, national trust knew about it. 21 of 28 Prevent interference - Andrae v Selfridge d carrying out work = noise and dust. could have done extra 22 of 28 Who can sue - Malone v Lasky Old law: Toilet unit pulled down, fell unto head, thus wife no actual claim 23 of 28 Who can sue - Hunter v Canary Wharf New law: must have a proprietary rights. 24 of 28 Be sued - Acts of Trespasser - Sedleigh -Denfield v O'Callagham Council blocked the drains, occupier was liable for acts as a trespasser if they adopt nusiance. 25 of 28 Be sued - Acts of nature - Goldman v Hargrave tree caught fire, didnt dap it dow causing fire .. next prop on fire. 26 of 28 Be sued - Acts of nature - Leakey National trust landslip case. 27 of 28 Be sued- Landlords - Tetley v Chitty go kart company council allowed it, aware of the noise it could create. 28 of 28
Comments
No comments have yet been made