6. Nuisance & Escape of dangerous things Flashcards
Define Private Nuisance
“an unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land or some right over, or in connection with it” (Winfield v Jolowicz)
PN involves balancing the competing interests of individuals
Criteria for private nuisance
(1) parties to an action
(2) indirect interference
(3) unlawful (unreasonable) interference
- parties to an action
- legal right to bring action
- the person suing is capable of being a defendant
claimant:
- use/enjoyment of land
- affected by the interest
- legal interest in land (owner, occupier, holder of legal or equitable title) (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
defendant:
- creator of nuisance
- occupier is they adopt or continue activities of the creator
- landlord if they authorise of approve or the activities of the tenant (creator)
- indirect interference
(1) physical damage
- land, plants, crops, goods stored on land
- eg: gas destroying plants, dust, water damage
- NOT personal injury
(2) loss of amenity/enjoyment
- Cs ability to use or enjoy land is restricted by Ds activities
- eg: noise preventing sleep, unpleasant smells, fumes preventing opening windows
- unlawful (unreasonable) interference
private nuisance balances the conflicting interests of neighbours
activities are unlawful if the impact on the C is so unreasonable that they should not be expected to put up with it
objective test
court applies factors:
(a) locality
(b) duration
(c) degree
(d) sensitivity
(e) motive/malice
(a) locality
wider range of activities are allowed in industrial areas than in residential/ rural areas (Sturges v Bridgman)
- “what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Squares would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”
locality is irrelevant if there is physical damage (St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping)
can be an acceptable activity carried out in the wrong area (Laws v Florinplace)
(b) duration
- how often it happens
- time of day
can be a single incident (Crown Ricer Cruises v Kimbolton)
can be temporary interference (De Keyers RH v Spicier Bros)
(c) degree
how serious the nuisance is
if there is physical damage, it will be unreasonable
if there is loss of amenity/enjoyment, the court decides if the nuisance materially interferes with ordinary existence (Walter v Selfe) (Murdoch v Glacier Metal)
(d) sensitivity
if C is using his property for an extra sensitive use he is not entitled to claim in circumstances where a reasonable use would not need protection
BUT if Ds activities would have interfered with an ordinary use of Cs land, C can claim (McKinnon v Walker)
(e) malice/motive
D deliberately does something with no purpose other than to annoy C (Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett) (Christie v Davey)
private nuisance: defences
- Statutory authority
- nuisance is created by a public body acting under a legislative duty or power
- effectively authorised by parliament
- ONLY if carried out without negligence and with reasonable regard to the interest of others
- Allen v Gulf Oil - Prescription
- D has carried out for the last 20 years without complaint = legal
- Sturges v Bridgman - Planning permission
- permission for the nuisance has already been granted = legal
- Gillingham BC v Medway Dock - Volenti non fit injuria
- claimant consents to the nuisance
NOT DEFENCES:
(1) “coming to a nuisance” - doenst matter if D was there before C (Sturges v Bridgman)
(2) C could have helped themselves
(3) D using reasonable care and skill
(4) nuisance partly caused by someone else
Social utility: doesn’t stop a nuisance being a nuisance, but mylar affect the remedy (eg damages rather than injunction)
private nuisance: remedies
(1) Damages
- compensation for: physical loss, reduction in value, business loss (Fearn v Tate Gallery)
- remoteness test applies (Wagon Mound No1)
(2) Injunction
- an order strictly prohibiting or controlling an activity
- NOT for trivial matters
- NOT where there is social utility (limits)
- Miller v Jackson
- can be a partial injunction (Kennaway v Thompson)
(3) Abatement
- right of C to take reasonable steps to deal with nuisance
leading case for escape of dangerous things
Rylands v Fletcher
R v F escape of dangerous things: definition
D is liable if, on their land, they accumulate a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of that land, and the thing escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage (Rylands v Fletcher)
strict liability tort
NOT for personal injury
R v F escape of dangerous things: criteria
- parties to action
- accumulation
- a dangerous thing
- non-natural use
- escape
- reasonably foreseeable damage
- parties to action
Claimant: has a legal interest in the land affected by the escape
- eg, owning or renting land
Hunter v Canary Wharf
- accumulation
D voluntarily brings onto their land an accumulation of the substance which escaped
accumulation = gathering together of a large amount of material
accumulation must be artificial (Giles v Walker)
D must control land
- a dangerous thing
likely to do mischief is it escapes (Rylands v Fletcher)
eg, chemicals, explosives, fumes, flagpole
poses an ‘exceptional risk’ if it escapes (Transco v Stockport MBC)
- non-natural use
Rylands v Fletcher
abnormal and unreasonable use Rickards v Lothian
‘extraordinary and unusual’ (Transco v Stockport MBC)
certain activities may always lead to a potential level of danger which amounts to a non-natural use (even if there is public benefit)
Cambridge Water v ECL
- escape
the dangerous thing must escape
the substance moved from land that D controls (or occupies) to land that they do not (Read v Lyons)
FIRE:
- usually fails to meet requirements (Stannard v Gore)
- may be exceptions eg fire moving from an anointing property
- reasonably foreseeable damage
only liable for damage that is reasonable foreseeable (Cambridge Water v ECL)
only damage to land and goods stored on land , NOT personal injury (Rylands v Fletcher)
R v F: defences
(1) Act of a stranger
- escape caused by deliberate and unforeseen act of a stranger (D had no control)
- Perry v Kendricks Transport
(2) Act of God
- natural event so enormous that it cannot be foreseen or guarded against
- nothing D can do to stop it
- Nichols v Marsland
(3) Statutory Authority
- escape occurs during activities authorised by an act of parliament
- ONLY if no negligence
- Green v Chelsea Waterworks
(4) Volenti non fit injuria
- C consents to the thing D accumulates
(5) Common benefit
- the source of a potential danger is something maintained for the benefit of both C and D
(6) fault of C
- escape is caused by C
