15-Nuisance And The Escape Of Dangerous Things

Question 1

What is private nuisance?

Answer 1

A tort claim

• someone’s use or enjoyment of their property is
• affected by the
• unreasonable behaviour
• of a neighbour.

Question 2

What are the two main types of private nuisance?

Answer 2

1) Loss of amenity-noise, smell or smoke

2) material damage-dangerous state of affairs on D land caused physical damage on C land

Question 3

What case demonstrates that:

an occupier who knows of a danger and allows to continue even if not caused by themselves can be liable?

Answer 3

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)

Facts: D’s were monks who bought land from council but did not sort out drainage issue.

Question 4

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

What case demonstrates that:

If D is aware of a naturally occurring hazard on their property they can be liable?

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Leakey v National Trust (1980)

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

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?

Answer 7

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)

Question 8

What case contrasts with Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)?

Answer 8

McKenna v British Aluminium (2002)

Facts: Over 30 claimants including children claimed for noise and fine pollution from D factory.

Question 9

Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

What are the two main elements to private nuisance?

Answer 10

Unlawful-meaning unreasonable.

Indirect interference-

Question 11

What case demonstrates that:

Feeling of emotional distress caused by D property can amount to a nuisance?

Answer 11

Laws v Florinplace Ltd (1981)

Facts: injunction was awarded when a shop was converted into a sex shop.

Question 12

Laws v Florinplace Ltd (1981)

Answer 12

Principle: that emotional distress caused by D property can amount to nuisance.

Facts: Injunction awarded when a shop was converted into a sex shop.

Question 13

What case demonstrates that:

Even a short term activity can amount to a nuisance?

Answer 13

Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd (1996)

Facts: 20 minute firework display damaged a river barge.

Question 14

Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd (1996)

Answer 14

Principle: even short term activity can be a nuisance.

Facts: 20 minute firework display ended in damage to a barge.

Question 15

What case demonstrates that:

Even temporary building work can amount to a nuisance?

Answer 15

De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914)

Facts: Building work carries out at night and interferes with C sleep.

Question 16

De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914)

Answer 16

Principle: even temporary building work can be a nuisance.

Facts: building work carried out at night affected C sleep.

Question 17

What case demonstrates that:

if C is unduly sensitive then no nuisance will be found.

Answer 17

Robinson v Kilvert (1889)

Facts: Paper boxes stored in hot/dry conditions which caused C brown paper to dry out.

Question 18

Robinson v Kilvert (1889)

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

What case is a modern version of Robinson v Kilvert (1889)?

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

What case demonstrates that:

A deliberate, harmful act will normally be considered a nuisance?

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet (1936)

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

What case demonstrates that:

Use of a sports ground and community benefit outweighed private use of C property?

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Miller v Jackson (1977)

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

What are the 5 Factors of Reasonableness regarding nuisance and supporting cases?

Answer 24

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

Question 25

What case was an attempted defence of ‘prescription’ regarding private nuisance?

Answer 25

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.

Question 26

Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

Answer 26

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.

Question 27

What case is an example of statutory authority as a defence to a claim of private nuisance?

Answer 27

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining (1981)

Facts: D given statutory authority to establish on land.

Question 28

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining (1981)

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

Statutory authority.
What case demonstrates that if a remedy is already established in statute then there is no need for private nuisance claim?

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

Marcic v Thames Water PLC (2003)

Answer 30

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.

Question 31

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?

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock (1993)

Answer 32

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.

Question 33

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)

Answer 33

Coventry v Lawrence (2014)

Facts: C claims racetrack near his house causes private nuisance. Injunction awarded limiting use of track.

Question 34

Coventry v Lawrence (2014)

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

What are three possible remedies to private nuisance?

Answer 35

1) Damages awarded
2) Injunction
3) Abatement

Question 36

Which case provides for the guidance for the future use of injunctions regarding a remedy for private nuisance?

Answer 36

Coventry v Lawrence (2014)

Question 37

What are the 4 guidances issued by the Supreme Court regarding the issuing of an injunction following the case of Coventry v Lawrence (2014)?

Answer 37

1) Default
2) Open to D to suggest damages
3) Shelfer test not applied rigidly
4) Injunction not automatically applied

Question 38

What is the Shelfer test?

Answer 38

That damages should be awarded over an injunction when injury to C was small and unfair on D to grant injunction.

Question 39

That damages should be awarded over an injunction when injury to C was small and unfair on D to grant injunction.

Answer 39

The Shelfer test

Question 40

What does the Shelfer test come from?

Answer 40

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co (1895)

Question 41

Shelfer v City of London Lighting Co (1895)

Answer 41

Established Shelfer test

Question 42

What is a claim in the tort of Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 42

When something causes damage.

Question 43

What are the 4 essential elements to the tort of Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 43

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.

Question 44

What are the facts of Rylands v Fletcher (1868)?

Answer 44

Facts: D was mill owner and hired contractors to build a reservoir but water escaped the reservoir into mine shafts.

Question 45

What case supports the element of ‘the bringing onto the land’ in a tort of Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 45

Ellison v MOD (1997)

Facts: Rain water that drained from RAF base onto adjoining land was considered naturally occurring. No claim allowed.

Question 46

Ellison v MOD (1997)

Answer 46

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.

Question 47

What case supports the element of ‘the thing which is likely to do mischief if it escapes’ in a tort of Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 47

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.

Question 48

Hale v Jennings Bros (1938)

Answer 48

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.

Question 49

What case decided that personal injury claims cannot be made under Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 49

Transco PLC v Stockport Borough Council (2003)

Question 50

Transco v Stockport Borough Council (2003)

Answer 50

Personal injury claims cannot be made under a tort of Rylands v Fletcher.

Question 51

What case demonstrates a ‘NATURAL use of land’ in a tort of Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 51

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.

Question 52

Rickards v Lothian (1913)

Answer 52

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.

Question 53

What case is an example of ‘the thing stored must escape’ in a tort of Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 53

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.

Question 54

Read v Lyons (1947)

Answer 54

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.

Question 55

What case demonstrates that ‘damage has to be reasonably foreseeable’ regarding a tort in Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 55

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.

Question 56

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)

Answer 56

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.

Question 57

What case is an example of non-natural use of the land regarding a tort in Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 57

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.

Question 58

LMS International v Styrene Packaging (2005)

Answer 58

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.

Question 59

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?

Answer 59

Article 8 ECHR

Everyone has right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence.

Question 60

The principle of Article 8 ECHR contradict the findings in which case?

Answer 60

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)

Question 61

Article 8 ECHR

Answer 61

Everyone has right to their private, family life, home and correspondence.

Question 62

Everyone has right to their private, family life, home and correspondence.

Answer 62

Article 8 ECHR