10 - TORT - Land private nuisance Flashcards
What is private nuisance?
Any
- continuous activity βοΈπ·ββοΈ
- causing substantial & unreasonable interference ππ€ͺπ‘
- with a Cβs land or their use/employment of that landπ‘
Who can sue for private nuisance?
Must have a legal interest in the land (freehold / leasehold)
π‘
Who can be sued for private nuisance?
- Creator of nuisance π₯
- Occupier of land from which nuisance originates π«
- Owner of the land π©
E.g. - independent contractors (if occupier asks); π·ββοΈ
- trespassers/visitors/predecessors in title (occupier liable if adopt nuisance); π¦ΉββοΈ
- naturally occurring nuisances (occupier liable where they knew & failed to take reasonable steps to abate it) πͺΏ
What are the cases on who can be sued for private nuisance?
π₯
- occupier liable for excessive noise and dust caused by contractors on his property. π·π¬οΈ
- water pipe laid unlawfully beneath Dβs land causing a flood. D had used pipe (adopted) and so liable. πͺπ°π
- Lighting caused a fire, D doused fire but left embers, fire reignited and damaged Cβs property. β‘οΈπ₯π§π₯
- LL allowed a motor-sport on his land - noise was not inevitable so LL had not participated in nuisance π©ποΈπβ
When can a landlord be liable for a tenantβs nuisance?
- Where they authorised it, πβοΈ
- by actively participating or π€‘π₯π©πΈ
- by leasing, where there was a very high probability that leasing would create the nuisance π§¨
What losses are recoverable for private nuisance?
π₯
- Property damage (more than de minimus) ποΈ
- Sensible personal discomfort (more than fanciful & must materially interfere with ordinary human comfort) π΅βπ«
Can a claim be made for personal injury under private nuisance?
No π‘π π€β
What are the requirements for private nuisance?
- Indirect Interference (intangible e.g noise, fumes) π¨
- Recognised Damage (that is reasonable foreseeable) ποΈπ§
- Continuous Act (unless a single incident caused by underlying state of affairs or for Ryland v Fletcher) βοΈ
- Unlawful Interference: must be unreasonable considering ordinary usage of a man living in a particular society (consider time/duration; area, abnormal sensitivity; malice; excessive behaviour)π§ββοΈπ€‘
What are the considerations for βUnlawful interferenceβ?
π¨ββοΈπ‘
- Time & Duration π°οΈ
- Locality π‘
. - Abnormal sensitivity π·
. - Malice π€¬
- Dβs carelessness π«£
- Excessive behaviour π€ͺ
What are the exceptions to βcontinuous actβ required for private nuisance?
- factory with metal foil strips, harm was caused in one go, but factory had been warned about leaving strips outside before.
πππ¨β‘οΈπ³
What are the cases regarding time & location when considering βunlawful interferenceβ for private nuisance? π°οΈπ‘
- motor boats = short lived so less likely to be unlawful π€ β±οΈ
- Sweet business in a residential area near a Doctor caused a nuisance but may not have been on an industrial estate π¬ππ₯Όπ‘
- planning permission can change the nature of the βlocalityβ so what was a nuisance no longer is - e.g. area became a dock with heavy traffic so changed local area = no nuisance ππ‘π’π
- but PP for a pig pen did not change local area so smell caused nuisance. ππ·π©
- speedway with PP in a rural area still caused a nuisance.ππ‘ποΈ
What are the cases regarding abnormal sensitivity when considering βunlawful interferenceβ for private nuisance? π·
- Cβs heat sensitive paper was ruined by the heat from Dβs manufacturing business in the cellar. No nuisance as C was abnormally sensitive.
βοΈβ¨οΈπ° - C grew orchids, Dβs factory fumes damaged plants in general so C could claim as the nuisance was caused generally (thin skull rule).
π·ππ¨π²β οΈπ€
What are the cases regarding malice when considering βunlawful interferenceβ for private nuisance? π€¬
C was a music teacher who disturbed D. D made noises to get his own back. Dβs malice made his interference unlawful
πΌπ€¬π₯π³
What are the cases regarding defendants lack of care when considering βunlawful interferenceβ for private nuisance?
π«£
Normally neighbours have to put up with a certain amount of noise dust etc. from building works. But may be unlawful if building works could have been less disruptive
π«£ποΈπ¬οΈ
What are the cases regarding excessive behaviour when considering βunlawful interferenceβ for private nuisance?
π€ͺ
D owned 100s of pheasants who damaged Cβs crops - unlawful.
π€ͺπ¦π¦π¦π¦π¦πΎ