7. Nuisance Flashcards
Hunter v Canary Wharf
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
Bamford v Turnley
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’
Thomas v NUM
Create a nuisance can be sued, even if he is not the occupier of the land
Leakey v National Trust
Occupier can be sued
Holbeck v Scarborough
Occupier won’t be expected to bankrupt himself to abate nuisance
St Helens v Tipping
HL distinguishes between
- Physical damage to property and
- Sensible personal discomfort (SPD)
Character of neighbourhood only relevant to SPD
Cambridge v Eastern Counties
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
Sedleigh v O’Callaghan
What counts as reasonable use is determined by the specific context
Kennaway v Thompson
Time and duration
Partial injunction
Spicer v Smee
Fire caused by defective wiring illustrates underlying dangerous state of affairs
Sturges v Bridgman
Character of area relevant in determining whether use of land is unlawful
Fact C moved to nuisance which was already present is immaterial
Adams v Ursell
Fumes from fish and chip shop held to be nuisance in residential area
Laws v Florinplace
Men of sleazy disposition attending sex shop in residential area held to be nuisance
Wheeler v JJ Saunders
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
Gillingham BC v Medway
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
Watson v Croft Promo-Sport
Nature of rural area unchanged after planning permission granted to build motor circuit, even after it has been running for 40 years
Lawrence v Fen Tigers
Planning permission followed by the carrying out of the permitted activity over time may have effect of changing character of locality
Robinson v Kilvert
No nuisance where paper is damaged due to its abnormal sensitivity to hear
McKinnon v Walker
Ds liable for the full extent of loss to C’s sensitive orchids, since their activities had also damaged other less sensitive plans
Network Rail Infrastructure v CJ Morris
Doubts raised about abnormal sensitivity - better to view such cases in terms of foreseeability
Christie v Davey
Nuisance more likely where malice is involved
Andrae v Selfridge
If D has shown that of care, this is likely to count in C’s favour
Miller v Jackson
Wrong to expect C to bear too great a burden for benefit of public at large
Court refused injunction granted order for compensation only
Bellow v Irish Cement
Court orders closure of cement works causing nuisance, though it was the only one in Ireland at a time when building was public necessity
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining
No liability where nuisance is inevitable consequence of activity carried out on basis of statutory authority
Lemmon v Webb
C entitled to cut down overhanging branches (abatement)
Attorney General v PYA Quarries
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’
Attorney General v Hastings Corporation
No exact number to determine if there is a ‘class’ - depends on circumstances of case
Rose v Miles
Individual suing in public nuisance must have suffered special loss over and above rest of class
Tate and Lyle v GLC
Individual need not have interest in land to sue under public nuisance
Rylands v Fletcher
Brings onto land and accumulates there
Anything likely to do mischief
Escape
Non-natural use of land
Transco v Stockport
C can claim only for property damage under Rylands
For use to be non-natural, it must be ‘extraordinary and unusual’
Read v Lyons
C must have interest in land to sue
Giles v Walker
No liability under Rylands where object causing harm grows on land naturally and so was not brought there by D
Stannard v Gore
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
Shiffman v Order of St John
Possible to impose liability for relatively safe things if they can escape in way that would make them dangerous
Rickards v Lothian
Non-natural use of land is ‘Some special use bringing with it increased danger’
Musgrove v Pandelis
Storing car with full tank in garage was non-natural use of land
Cammidge v Young
Musgrove not followed
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
Consent can be implied if a substance has been accumulated for the common benefit of C and D
Dunn v Birmingham Canal
Act of C valid defence where he digs under D’s canal, causing it to flood onto his land
Perry v Kendrick’s Transport
Defence of act of stranger only applies if D has not been negligent
Nichols v Marsland
Defence of Act of God is restricted to exceptional and unforeseeable natural occurrences
McKenna v British Aluminium
Some suggestion of relaxation of interest in land requirement under pressure from HRA
Dennis v MoD
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
