CASES: Private nuisance

Question 1

Sedleigh Denfield V O’Callaghan

Answer 1

Liable. Despite not negligently installing the pipeworks themselves, they continued and adopted the nuisance.

Question 2

Sturges V Bridgman

Answer 2

‘what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’

Question 3

Fearn V Tate Gallery

Answer 3

held - liable. There was a substantial interference with the ordinary use/enjoyment of the claimants homes. D was using land in abnormal/unexpected way.
Damages were awarded over an injunction.

Question 4

Crown River cruises V Kimbolton Fireworks

Answer 4

Held - liable. Holding 15-20 minute display still created a nuisance.

Question 5

Pusey V Somerset County council

Answer 5

Held - not liable. C had become unusally obsessed with layby and it was not interferring with their comfort or convenience or affecting their living standards.

Question 6

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm V Emmett

Answer 6

Held - liable. Intention of D was to deliberately cause harm here malice made it unreasonable/unlawful.

Question 7

Hunter V Canary Wharf

Answer 7

Held - not liable, because it was interference with a purely recreational facility as opposed to any health and comfort of any claimants.

Question 8

Coventry V Lawrence

Answer 8

Held - liable. C had only moved in 6 years before so prescription did not apply. However damages awarded over an injunction.