Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort > 7. Nuisance > Flashcards

7. Nuisance Flashcards

0
Q

Hunter v Canary Wharf

A

Requirement that C have interest in land restored

Not possible to claim for PI in private nuisance

Court refused to recognise claim for interference with TV reception caused by large tower block

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Bamford v Turnley

A

Private nuisance defined as ‘any continuous activity or state of affairs causing substantial and unreasonable interference with a plaintiff’s land or his use of enjoyment of that

C must show nuisance constitutes ‘unlawful’ (i.e. unreasonable) interference with his enjoyment or use of the land

Nuisance is a ‘rule of give and take, live and let live’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Thomas v NUM

A

Create a nuisance can be sued, even if he is not the occupier of the land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Leakey v National Trust

A

Occupier can be sued

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Holbeck v Scarborough

A

Occupier won’t be expected to bankrupt himself to abate nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

St Helens v Tipping

A

HL distinguishes between

  1. Physical damage to property and
  2. Sensible personal discomfort (SPD)

Character of neighbourhood only relevant to SPD

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Cambridge v Eastern Counties

A

Storage of chemicals an ‘almost classic case’ of non-natural use

For Rylands to apply, D must have known ought reasonably to have foreseen that the thing which escaped could cause damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Sedleigh v O’Callaghan

A

What counts as reasonable use is determined by the specific context

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Kennaway v Thompson

A

Time and duration

Partial injunction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Spicer v Smee

A

Fire caused by defective wiring illustrates underlying dangerous state of affairs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Sturges v Bridgman

A

Character of area relevant in determining whether use of land is unlawful

Fact C moved to nuisance which was already present is immaterial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Adams v Ursell

A

Fumes from fish and chip shop held to be nuisance in residential area

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Laws v Florinplace

A

Men of sleazy disposition attending sex shop in residential area held to be nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

A

Planning permission will not authorise a nuisance

Grant of planning permission under statutory powers is not the same as statutory authority - does not constitute a defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Gillingham BC v Medway

A

Planning permission may alter the character of the area so that what was once a nuisance in that area is no longer a nuisance or vice versa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Watson v Croft Promo-Sport

A

Nature of rural area unchanged after planning permission granted to build motor circuit, even after it has been running for 40 years

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Lawrence v Fen Tigers

A

Planning permission followed by the carrying out of the permitted activity over time may have effect of changing character of locality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Robinson v Kilvert

A

No nuisance where paper is damaged due to its abnormal sensitivity to hear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

McKinnon v Walker

A

Ds liable for the full extent of loss to C’s sensitive orchids, since their activities had also damaged other less sensitive plans

19
Q

Network Rail Infrastructure v CJ Morris

A

Doubts raised about abnormal sensitivity - better to view such cases in terms of foreseeability

20
Q

Christie v Davey

A

Nuisance more likely where malice is involved

21
Q

Andrae v Selfridge

A

If D has shown that of care, this is likely to count in C’s favour

22
Q

Miller v Jackson

A

Wrong to expect C to bear too great a burden for benefit of public at large

Court refused injunction granted order for compensation only

23
Q

Bellow v Irish Cement

A

Court orders closure of cement works causing nuisance, though it was the only one in Ireland at a time when building was public necessity

24
Q

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining

A

No liability where nuisance is inevitable consequence of activity carried out on basis of statutory authority

25
Q

Lemmon v Webb

A

C entitled to cut down overhanging branches (abatement)

26
Q

Attorney General v PYA Quarries

A

Public nuisance defined as ‘acts or omissions of the defendant that materially affect the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects’

27
Q

Attorney General v Hastings Corporation

A

No exact number to determine if there is a ‘class’ - depends on circumstances of case

28
Q

Rose v Miles

A

Individual suing in public nuisance must have suffered special loss over and above rest of class

29
Q

Tate and Lyle v GLC

A

Individual need not have interest in land to sue under public nuisance

30
Q

Rylands v Fletcher

A

Brings onto land and accumulates there
Anything likely to do mischief
Escape
Non-natural use of land

31
Q

Transco v Stockport

A

C can claim only for property damage under Rylands

For use to be non-natural, it must be ‘extraordinary and unusual’

32
Q

Read v Lyons

A

C must have interest in land to sue

33
Q

Giles v Walker

A

No liability under Rylands where object causing harm grows on land naturally and so was not brought there by D

34
Q

Stannard v Gore

A

Tyres stored on D’s property caught fire, which spread to C’s property

Rylands not apply because it was not the tyres that had escaped

34
Q

Shiffman v Order of St John

A

Possible to impose liability for relatively safe things if they can escape in way that would make them dangerous

35
Q

Rickards v Lothian

A

Non-natural use of land is ‘Some special use bringing with it increased danger’

36
Q

Musgrove v Pandelis

A

Storing car with full tank in garage was non-natural use of land

37
Q

Cammidge v Young

A

Musgrove not followed

38
Q

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

A

Consent can be implied if a substance has been accumulated for the common benefit of C and D

39
Q

Dunn v Birmingham Canal

A

Act of C valid defence where he digs under D’s canal, causing it to flood onto his land

40
Q

Perry v Kendrick’s Transport

A

Defence of act of stranger only applies if D has not been negligent

41
Q

Nichols v Marsland

A

Defence of Act of God is restricted to exceptional and unforeseeable natural occurrences

42
Q

McKenna v British Aluminium

A

Some suggestion of relaxation of interest in land requirement under pressure from HRA

43
Q

Dennis v MoD

A

National security doesn’t stop claim in public nuisance succeeding

But damages rather than injunction awarded

Assessment of damages under common-law principles would provide ‘just satisfaction’ under HRA

Tort (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions