Flash Card UK Tort law Nuisance

Question 1

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) - Principle

Answer 1

Topic: Nuisance (Private Nuisance)
Principle: Nuisance occurs when an unreasonable interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land takes place.
Summary: Residents complained about interference from a large building blocking TV signals.
Outcome: The court ruled no nuisance as the interference was not unreasonable.

Question 2

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) - Outcome

Answer 2

The court ruled no nuisance as the interference was not unreasonable.

Question 3

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940) - Principle

Answer 3

An occupier can be liable for nuisance caused by third parties if they have knowledge and fail to act.

Question 4

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940) - Summary

Answer 4

A blocked drain on the defendant’s land caused flooding to the claimant’s property.

Question 5

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940) - Outcome

Answer 5

The court found the defendant liable for failing to prevent the nuisance.

Question 6

Miller v Jackson (1977) - Principle

Answer 6

A defence to nuisance may be available if the activity is done with the consent of the affected party or with statutory authority.

Question 7

Miller v Jackson (1977) - Summary

Answer 7

Claimants complained about cricket balls landing on their property.

Question 8

Miller v Jackson (1977) - Outcome

Answer 8

The court found in favor of the cricket club, applying the defence of necessity.

Question 9

Coventry v Lawrence (2014) - Principle

Answer 9

Planning permission does not automatically preclude a claim for nuisance.

Question 10

Coventry v Lawrence (2014) - Summary

Answer 10

Noise from a speedway event caused nuisance to nearby residents.

Question 11

Coventry v Lawrence (2014) - Outcome

Answer 11

The claim for nuisance succeeded, despite the event having planning permission.

Question 12

Sturges v Bridgman (1879) - Principle

Answer 12

A claim for nuisance cannot be based on activities that have been conducted without complaint for a long period.

Question 13

Sturges v Bridgman (1879) - Summary

Answer 13

A doctor’s surgery was disrupted by noise from a nearby confectionery factory.

Question 14

Sturges v Bridgman (1879) - Outcome

Answer 14

The court ruled the factory was liable for the nuisance, rejecting the defence of prescription.

Question 15

Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) - Principle

Answer 15

Nuisance claims require that the damage was foreseeable and caused by the defendant’s actions.

Question 16

Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) - Summary

Answer 16

Water contamination caused by a tannery led to the plaintiff’s economic loss.

Question 17

Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) - Outcome

Answer 17

The court ruled that the damage was not foreseeable and the claim failed.

Question 18

Royal v KCM (1996) - Principle

Answer 18

A nuisance exists when there is a significant interference with a person’s right to enjoy their land.

Question 19

Royal v KCM (1996) - Summary

Answer 19

Interference from noisy construction work affected the claimant’s enjoyment of their property.

Question 20

Royal v KCM (1996) - Outcome

Answer 20

The defendant was found liable for the nuisance.

Question 21

Bamford v Turnley (1862) - Principle

Answer 21

A nuisance is an unlawful interference with the enjoyment of land.

Question 22

Bamford v Turnley (1862) - Summary

Answer 22

Defendant’s factory emitted smoke affecting the claimant’s property.

Question 23

Bamford v Turnley (1862) - Outcome

Answer 23

The court found in favor of the claimant, stating that a factory causing pollution was a nuisance.

Question 24

Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (2012) - Principle

Answer 24

A nuisance can include environmental factors such as odour or air pollution.

Question 25

Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (2012) - Summary

Answer 25

A landfill site emitted foul odours affecting nearby residents.

Question 26

Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (2012) - Outcome

Answer 26

The court held the defendant liable for the nuisance caused by the site.

Question 27

Leakey v National Trust (1980) - Principle

Answer 27

An occupier can be liable for natural conditions if they are aware of the risk and fail to take action.

Question 28

Leakey v National Trust (1980) - Summary

Answer 28

A landslide from a hill owned by the National Trust caused damage to nearby property.

Question 29

Leakey v National Trust (1980) - Outcome

Answer 29

The court found the Trust liable for failing to act on the risk of the landslide.

Question 30

De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd (1920) - Principle

Answer 30

Interference with the enjoyment of property caused by noisy or disruptive activities is actionable.

Question 31

De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd (1920) - Summary

Answer 31

Construction work at a hotel created excessive noise and disturbance.

Question 32

De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd (1920) - Outcome

Answer 32

The court awarded an injunction to prevent the nuisance.

Question 33

Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) - Principle

Answer 33

A nuisance claim can only succeed if the damage caused by the interference was foreseeable.

Question 34

Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) - Summary

Answer 34

A tannery discharged chemicals that polluted water sources, causing damage to a nearby water company.

Question 35

Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) - Outcome

Answer 35

The court ruled that the damage was not foreseeable at the time, and the claim failed.

Question 36

Miller v Jackson (1977) - Principle

Answer 36

Public benefit does not necessarily preclude a nuisance claim, but it may be a factor in the court's decision.

Question 37

Miller v Jackson (1977) - Summary

Answer 37

Residents sued a cricket club over cricket balls landing in their gardens.

Question 38

Miller v Jackson (1977) - Outcome

Answer 38

The court found in favor of the cricket club, citing public interest and necessity.

Question 39

Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (1961) - Principle

Answer 39

A private nuisance claim can be made for pollution affecting the use of land, such as air pollution.

Question 40

Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (1961) - Summary

Answer 40

Residents sued Esso for air pollution caused by its refinery, which made their homes unpleasant to live in.

Question 41

Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (1961) - Outcome

Answer 41

The court awarded the plaintiffs damages for the nuisance caused by the air pollution.

Question 42

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) - Principle

Answer 42

A claimant must have an interest in the land affected by the nuisance to bring a claim.

Question 43

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) - Summary

Answer 43

Residents of the Canary Wharf area complained of interference with television reception due to the construction of a building.

Question 44

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) - Outcome

Answer 44

The court ruled the claimants did not have standing as they did not have an interest in the land and dismissed the case.

Question 45

Sturges v Bridgman (1879) - Principle

Answer 45

A nuisance may still be actionable even if the activity has been carried on for a long time, and even if the neighborhood changes.

Question 46

Sturges v Bridgman (1879) - Summary

Answer 46

A doctor’s practice was disturbed by the noise from a neighboring confectionery factory.

Question 47

Sturges v Bridgman (1879) - Outcome

Answer 47

The court ruled that the confectionery factory was a nuisance, even though it had been in operation for a long time before the doctor moved in.

Question 48

Robinson v Kilvert (1889) - Principle

Answer 48

A claim for nuisance is only viable if the interference with the use or enjoyment of land is substantial.

Question 49

Robinson v Kilvert (1889) - Summary

Answer 49

A heat from the defendant's paper factory caused damage to delicate papers in the claimant’s shop.

Question 50

Robinson v Kilvert (1889) - Outcome

Answer 50

The court ruled that the heat was not substantial enough to constitute a nuisance.