Chapter 10- Torts connected with land: private and public nuisance Flashcards
Attorney- General v PVA Quarries Ltd
-30 locals complained of noise, dust and vibrations coming for D’s quarry which affected them and their enjoyment of their properties
-It was suggested that too few people were affected
-According to Lord Denning=
*‘A public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its effects that its proceedings would be taken on the responsibility of the community at large’
-The court decided that the defendants activities amounted to a public nuisance and an injunction was granted
(Public nuisance-a class of people)
Castle v St Augustine Links
-Golf club had put a tee next to a public road that went through the club grounds
-Golfers often hit balls onto the road, sometimes hitting cars
-A taxi was hit, breaking the windscreen and injuring the driver
-The club was found liable for public nuisance
-The class of people affected were car drivers
-The claimant suffered special damage over and above that class
(Public nuisance- special damage)
Corby Group Litigation v Corby Borough Council
-Local authority intended to redevelop a former steel works, the soil of which was shown to be toxic
-Due to the work on the site, several local children were born with deformed limbs
-CoA decided that a public nuisance is not confined to loss of enjoyment of land
-It is an unlawful act or omission which endangers the life, safety, health, property or comfort of the public
(Public nuisance- special damage)
Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd
-Oil refinery discharged oily smuts which damaged the paintwork of the claimants car parked in the street outside his house
-Other cars may have been affected but the claimant suffered damage over and above that of others and was able to claim for repairs to his car’s paintwork
(Public nuisance- special damage)
Rose v Miles
-D’s barge blocked a navigable river
-As a result the claimant was forced to empty his barge and pay for alternative transport
-D was liable for the additional cost incurred
(Public nuisance- special damage)
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan
-D’s occupied land with a ditch
-Council land pipe that caused neighbours land to flood neighbour
-By then the D’s knew of pipe
-HoL decided= occupier who knew of a danger and allows it to continue is liable
(Private nuisance- defendant)
Anthony v Coal Authority
-D took responsibility for a former colliery
-Landscaped later and sold as common land
-Fire started and last for 3 years
-Caused smoke and interfered with people
-D was liable as they were aware of the problem while the tip was still in its control and failed to prevent the nuisance
(Private nuisance- defendant)
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
-C’s lived in london docklands when canary wharf was built
-Claimed building affected TV reception
-HoL decided loss of recreational facility wasn’t sufficient interference
-Court confirmed the rule that only with an interest in the land can bring an action
(Elements of private nuisance- unlawful)
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd
-River barge was set alight by debris from firework display
-Display amounted to actionable nuisance
(Elements of private nuisance- duration)
Robinson v Kilvert
-C stored brown paper on ground floor of a building
-D stored paper boxes in basement and needed hot and dry conditions
-This caused brown paper to dry out
-Court decided brown paper was particularly delicate and the heat wouldn’t have dried out normal paper
-No injunction/ damages
(Elements of private nuisance- sensitivity of claimant)
Hollywood silver fox farm v emmett
-C bred mink
-D had disagreement with c and told son to shoot guns near property to frighten mink so they wouldn’t breed
-Deliberate and unreasonable act and amounted to a nuisance
(Elements of private nuisance- malice)
Miller v Jackson
-C’s use of garden was disrupted by cricket balls from cricket ground hit into it
-Club tried to compromise by erecting high fencing
-But C’s continued action to stop cricket
-Decided that the community use of the ground outweighed the private use and refused an injunction
(Elements of private nuisance- social benefit)
Allen v Gulf Oil
-Residents where D’s were operating an oil refinery brought an action in private and public nuisance
-D’s received statutory authority to acquire the site and build a refinery
-HoL argued that the defence was arguable as the refinery had been built under powers contained in an Act
(Private nuisance defences- statutory authority)
Sturges v Bridgman
-C lived and worked next to D’s confectionary factory
-C then built a consulting room on the factory boundary
-C complained of vibrations
-D argued that he could continue as he had been using the factory the same way for 20 years
-Defence failed
(Private nuisance defences- prescription)
