5 Nuisance Flashcards
cases
Point of law in Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] in relation to private nuisance
Residents experienced interference with tv signals due to the construction of a metal tower
Some claimants were homeowners, while others were family, lodgers and others without a propriety interest
The CoA ruled that the occupation of a home was a sufficient claim but this was revered in HoL
HoL reinstated the requirement of a propriety interest as stated in Malone v Laskey
Coventry v Lawrence [2014] in the law of nuisance
Claimants purchase and move into house near the Stadium and Track and complained about the noise to the council
Granted injunction about noise levels from High Court
CoA reversed decision as held it did not amount to nuisance
Supreme Court considered different factors (matrix of factors) and held that it amounted to nuisance
It was held by the Supreme Court that the fact that planning permission has been granted does not mean that the relevant activity is lawful, and is therefore of no assistance to the defendant.
Relevance of Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd v Bocardo SA [2010]?
Trespass Intention
No material damage was done to the estate by the drilling and the installation of the wells
There was no interference with Bocardo’s use or enjoyment of its land
However when he became aware of the wells, he had an action in trespass
Affirmed by CoA and Supreme Court
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Morris [2004]
Network Rail appealed against a finding that they were liable for nuisance to a recording studio
Held that the studio had abnormal sensitivities
But now correct test was whether it was foreseeable that specific damage would be caused to a specific claimant
It was not reasonable to expect Network Rail to foresee the interference caused based on a report compiled several years prior to the maintenance
Notion of foreseeability
Explain the facts in Hasley v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961]
Damages were awarded for damage to clothes hung on a washing line in the claimant’s garden
Seems that damage to property is allowed, but personal injury is not
Explain Marcic v Thams Water Utilities plc [2003]
Claimant sued in private nuisance and for violation of his Article 8 rights following the sewage floods at his home
He asked for damages and an injunction compelling Thames to make improvements
HoL rejected claim holding that Thames had not acted unreasonably
Statutory scheme protecting company
Did the statutory scheme infringe the claimant’s human rights? The Lords held that it struck the right balance between the different interests
Marcic principle would preclude a nuisance claim, absent negligence. However where the allegation related to nuisance caused by negligence, a claim would lie
Hatton v UK (2003)
Hatton complained night flights were a nuisance
Although they could seek judicial review of the night flight operation, the residents argued that they had not received (and could not receive) an effective remedy for this violation, in breach of Article 13 – right to an effective remedy
The EctHR held there was a breach of Article 8(1) and any derogation from this under Article 8(2) had to be proven, rather than assumed
Grand chamber overturned as the flights contribute to the economic wellbeing of the UK
Article 13 finding was upheld and the claimants were compensated
Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004]
Escape of water from a pipe owned by the defendant local authority caused an embankment to collapse, exposing a gas pipe
Expensive remedial work by the claimant
HoL held that this did not fall within the scope of Rylands on the basis that the simply of water through pipes was normal
It could not be considered as a non-natural use of the land
Lord Hoffman stated that there is insurance available
Did not meet the high threshold of exceptional risk arising from non-natural use that is required under a Rylands claim
Rylands v Fletcher (1868)
Liability for harm caused by the escape of things brought onto land
Reservoir built over abandoned mine shafts – they collapsed and flooded the claimant’s land
Defendant had not been negligent and no room for private nuisance claim
Liability established as ‘the person who for his own purpose brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do with mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape’
Approved by the HoL – Lord Cairns deciding the required use of land as ‘non-natural use’
See table
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994]
Defendants used chemical solvents when manufacturing
Tests were carried out on the claimant’s water and it was found to be polluted by the chemicals from the defendant
At first instance, the claim based on Rylands was dismissed as there was not a non-natural use of land
The CoA rejected the argument and held the storage of chemicals was a non-natural use of land
Held the defendants liable but reconsidered by the HoL
Lord Goff stated that Rylands required at least foreseeability of the risk
He made reference to Wagon Mound (No 1) and concluded that Rylands required foreseeability by the defendant of the relevant type of damage
No liability under Rylands, but adds foreseeability to Rylands
