15-Nuisance And The Escape Of Dangerous Things Flashcards
What is private nuisance?
A tort claim
- someone’s use or enjoyment of their property is
- affected by the
- unreasonable behaviour
- of a neighbour.
What are the two main types of private nuisance?
1) Loss of amenity-noise, smell or smoke
2) material damage-dangerous state of affairs on D land caused physical damage on C land
What case demonstrates that:
an occupier who knows of a danger and allows to continue even if not caused by themselves can be liable?
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)
Facts: D’s were monks who bought land from council but did not sort out drainage issue.
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)
Principle: occupier knows of a danger but doesn’t fix it even if it wasn’t created by them can be liable.
Facts: D’s were a group of monks who bought land but failed to fix a drainage issue.
What case demonstrates that:
If D is aware of a naturally occurring hazard on their property they can be liable?
Leakey v National Trust (1980)
Facts: D’s were landowners who knew of a natural mound that could slide. After heavy rainfall it did and damaged a cottage.
Leakey v National Trust (1980)
Principle: If D is aware of naturally occurring hazard on their property that causes damage D can be liable.
Facts: D were landowners who were aware of natural mound on their land that could slide. Which it did damaging a cottage.
What case demonstrates that:
The loss of recreational facility is not sufficient for a nuisance claim?
And that only people with an interest in the property can claim-this can be argued against in Article 8 ECHR.
What was the case that this contrasts with?
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)
Facts: residents in docklands complained they didn’t get TV reception hen Canary Wharf was being built. No claim allowed.
Contrasting finding: McKenna v British Aluminium (2002)
What case contrasts with Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)?
McKenna v British Aluminium (2002)
Facts: Over 30 claimants including children claimed for noise and fine pollution from D factory.
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
Principle: Recreational facility cannot constitute nuisance.
Only people with interest in property can claim for nuisance.
Facts: Residents of docklands made claim for lack of TV reception during Canary Wharf building.
What are the two main elements to private nuisance?
Unlawful-meaning unreasonable.
Indirect interference-
What case demonstrates that:
Feeling of emotional distress caused by D property can amount to a nuisance?
Laws v Florinplace Ltd (1981)
Facts: injunction was awarded when a shop was converted into a sex shop.
Laws v Florinplace Ltd (1981)
Principle: that emotional distress caused by D property can amount to nuisance.
Facts: Injunction awarded when a shop was converted into a sex shop.
What case demonstrates that:
Even a short term activity can amount to a nuisance?
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd (1996)
Facts: 20 minute firework display damaged a river barge.
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd (1996)
Principle: even short term activity can be a nuisance.
Facts: 20 minute firework display ended in damage to a barge.
What case demonstrates that:
Even temporary building work can amount to a nuisance?
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914)
Facts: Building work carries out at night and interferes with C sleep.
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914)
Principle: even temporary building work can be a nuisance.
Facts: building work carried out at night affected C sleep.
What case demonstrates that:
if C is unduly sensitive then no nuisance will be found.
Robinson v Kilvert (1889)
Facts: Paper boxes stored in hot/dry conditions which caused C brown paper to dry out.
Robinson v Kilvert (1889)
Principle: If c is unduly sensitive, a nuisance will not be found.
Facts: paper boxes stored hot and dry mad C brown paper dry out which was stored above boxes.
What case is a modern version of Robinson v Kilvert (1889)?
Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris (2004)
Facts: new train infrastructure affected local recording studio-but electric guitars deemed to sensitive, furthermore it was not foreseeable.
What case demonstrates that:
A deliberate, harmful act will normally be considered a nuisance?
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet (1936)
Facts: C bred mink on his farm and D shot gun near animals IOT scare them out of breeding. This amounted to a nuisance.
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet (1936)
Principle: A deliberate, harmful act will usually be considered a nuisance.
Facts: C bred mink on his farm and D shot gun near animals IOT scare them out of breeding. This amounted to a nuisance.
What case demonstrates that:
Use of a sports ground and community benefit outweighed private use of C property?
Miller v Jackson (1977)
Facts: C tried to stop field by his house being used as cricket ground. Held that cricket more important for community.
Miller v Jackson (1977)
Principle: that community use of sports ground outweighs private use of garden.
Facts: C tried to stop people using field as cricket ground by his garden.
What are the 5 Factors of Reasonableness regarding nuisance and supporting cases?
1) Duration or whether action repeated-Crown Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks (1996) firework display
2) Malice-Hollywood Silver Fox v Emmet (1936) shooting rifle near livestock
3) Nature of the area-Sturges v Bridgam (1879) Doctor consultant affected by noise
4) Social benefit-Miller v Jackson (1977)-cricket pitch
5) C is particularly sensitive-Robinson v Kilvert (1889)-brown paper storer
What case was an attempted defence of ‘prescription’ regarding private nuisance?
Sturges v Bridgman (1879)
Facts: C was doctor who made consultancy beat factory but then factory got louder after the BLDG was built. D not eligible for defence of prescription.
Sturges v Bridgman (1879)
Example of: D attempt a defence of prescription.
Facts: C was doctor who made consultancy near factory but then factory got louder. Factory could not claim defence of prescription.
What case is an example of statutory authority as a defence to a claim of private nuisance?
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining (1981)
Facts: D given statutory authority to establish on land.
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining (1981)
Principle: D given statutory authority as a defence to a claim of private nuisance.
Facts: D given statutory authority to establish a refinery on their land.
Statutory authority.
What case demonstrates that if a remedy is already established in statute then there is no need for private nuisance claim?
Marcic v Thames Water Plc (2003)
Facts: D failures led to flooding on C property. There was already remedies in Water Industry Act (1991) so no claim allowed.
Marcic v Thames Water PLC (2003)
Principle: of remedy is already defined in statute then there is no claim for nuisance available.
Facts: D negligence led to flooding on C land but there are already remedies in Water Industry Act (1991) so no claim allowed.
Statutory authority.
What case demonstrates that if planning permission changes character of an area then there can be no private nuisance brought about by D activity?
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock (1993)
Facts: Planning permission given to turn dock into commercial port but lorries acceding port caused nuisance, no claim given.
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock (1993)
Principle: if character of neighbourhood changed by planning permission then there is no nuisance. (This is a defence of statutory authority)
Facts: Planning permission given to turn dock into commercial port but lorries acceding port caused nuisance, no claim given.
Statutory authority.
What case demonstrates that:
Damages may be considered as remedy often in nuisance cases.
Especially where planning permission awarded and public interest involved (loss of jobs)
Coventry v Lawrence (2014)
Facts: C claims racetrack near his house causes private nuisance. Injunction awarded limiting use of track.
Coventry v Lawrence (2014)
Principle: damages may be considered as remedy often in nuisance. Especially where:
- planning permission given
- public interest (loss of jobs)
Facts: C claims private nuisance from racetrack near his house.
What are three possible remedies to private nuisance?
1) Damages awarded
2) Injunction
3) Abatement
Which case provides for the guidance for the future use of injunctions regarding a remedy for private nuisance?
Coventry v Lawrence (2014)
What are the 4 guidances issued by the Supreme Court regarding the issuing of an injunction following the case of Coventry v Lawrence (2014)?
1) Default
2) Open to D to suggest damages
3) Shelfer test not applied rigidly
4) Injunction not automatically applied
What is the Shelfer test?
That damages should be awarded over an injunction when injury to C was small and unfair on D to grant injunction.
That damages should be awarded over an injunction when injury to C was small and unfair on D to grant injunction.
The Shelfer test
What does the Shelfer test come from?
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co (1895)
Shelfer v City of London Lighting Co (1895)
Established Shelfer test
What is a claim in the tort of Rylands v Fletcher?
When something causes damage.
What are the 4 essential elements to the tort of Rylands v Fletcher?
1) bringing-or storing on the land
2) mischief-likely to cause mischief
3) non-natural-amounts or non-natural use of land
4) escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property.
What are the facts of Rylands v Fletcher (1868)?
Facts: D was mill owner and hired contractors to build a reservoir but water escaped the reservoir into mine shafts.
What case supports the element of ‘the bringing onto the land’ in a tort of Rylands v Fletcher?
Ellison v MOD (1997)
Facts: Rain water that drained from RAF base onto adjoining land was considered naturally occurring. No claim allowed.
Ellison v MOD (1997)
Principle: The bringing onto the land of something unnatural.
Facts: Rain water draining from RAF base was considered to be naturally occurring therefore no claim was allowed.
What case supports the element of ‘the thing which is likely to do mischief if it escapes’ in a tort of Rylands v Fletcher?
Hale v Jennings Bros (1938)
Facts: A chair-o-plane fell from a fair ride injuring someone. Decided that the escape of such an object would cause mischief claim allowed.
Although personal injury claims are no longer allowed under this tort.
Hale v Jennings Bros (1938)
Principle: ‘the thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes’ regarding a tort in Rylands v Fletcher.
Facts: ‘chair-o-plane’ fell from fair ground ride. Was decided that it was likely the escape of such an object would cause mischief-claim allowed.
What case decided that personal injury claims cannot be made under Rylands v Fletcher?
Transco PLC v Stockport Borough Council (2003)
Transco v Stockport Borough Council (2003)
Personal injury claims cannot be made under a tort of Rylands v Fletcher.
What case demonstrates a ‘NATURAL use of land’ in a tort of Rylands v Fletcher?
Rickards v Lothian (1913)
Facts: Unknown person turned on water taps and blocked drains. Caused damage to flat below. D not liable as use of water pipes is natural use of land.
Rickards v Lothian (1913)
Principle: ‘non-natural use of land’ in a tort of Rylands v Fletcher.
Facts: Unknown person blocked sink and turned taps on damaging flat downstairs. D not liable as water pipes are natural use of land.
What case is an example of ‘the thing stored must escape’ in a tort of Rylands v Fletcher?
Read v Lyons (1947)
Facts: munitions inspector caught up in explosion at factory. In this case there was no escape as it remained on the property. No claim allowed.
Read v Lyons (1947)
Principle: ‘the thing stored must escape’ regarding a tort in Rylands v Fletcher.
Facts: Munitions inspector injured when shell exploded. In this case there was no escape as the thing didn’t leave D property.
What case demonstrates that ‘damage has to be reasonably foreseeable’ regarding a tort in Rylands v Fletcher?
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)
Facts: D stored chemicals for it’s leather. Chemicals eventually seeped to an area where water company operated. No claim was given as damage was not foreseeable.
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)
Principle: ‘Damage has to be reasonably foreseeable’ regarding a tort in Rylands v Fletcher.
Facts: D stored chemicals for it’s leather. Chemicals eventually seeped to an area where water company operated. No claim was given as damage was not foreseeable.
What case is an example of non-natural use of the land regarding a tort in Rylands v Fletcher?
LMS Intrenational v Styrene Packaging (2005)
Facts: D stored large amount of flammables at their factory. They caught fire and damaged adjoining property. Claim was allowed as this was unnatural use of land and risk was foreseeable.
LMS International v Styrene Packaging (2005)
Example of: non-natural use of the land.
Facts: D stored large amount of flammables at their factory. They caught fire and damaged adjoining property. Claim was allowed as this was unnatural use of land and risk was foreseeable.
What contradicts with the principle established in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) that C has to have an interest in the property to claim for private nuisance?
Article 8 ECHR
Everyone has right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence.
The principle of Article 8 ECHR contradict the findings in which case?
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)
Article 8 ECHR
Everyone has right to their private, family life, home and correspondence.
Everyone has right to their private, family life, home and correspondence.
Article 8 ECHR
