Land Flashcards
Consider the types of harm covered by the tort of private nuisance.
Which one of the following statements is most likely to be INCORRECT?
Loss of sleep is a type of harm covered by private nuisance.
A heart attack is a type of harm covered by private nuisance.
Damage to trees is a type of harm covered by private nuisance.
Damage to the foundations of a house is a type of harm covered by private nuisance.
Feedback
Well done. The correct answer is B . Private nuisance does not cover personal injury.
In which of the following situations could there be a possible claim in private nuisance?
To celebrate a special event X lights a bonfire in his garden. Smoke drifts over the garden of his neighbour Y. X is not in the habit of lighting bonfires and this is a one-off event.
X lights a bonfire in his garden every Sunday to burn garden rubbish. Smoke and fumes always drift over Y’s garden and spoil her pleasure in sitting there.
X’s one-off celebratory bonfire was carelessly constructed so it collapsed onto Y’s fence and burnt it down.
Feedback
Well done. The correct answer is B. This situation is a continuing state of affairs which is potentially actionable in private nuisance.
A is wrong as there would be no claim in private nuisance as there is no continuing state of affairs.
C is wrong because there is no claim in private nuisance as this is a single event. However a single event which causes tangible damage could be actionable in negligence.
Which ONE of the following statements is INCORRECT?
A lodger cannot sue in private nuisance.
A member of the owner’s family cannot sue in private nuisance.
A tenant cannot sue in private nuisance.
The owner’s husband or wife cannot sue in private nuisance.
A landlord can only sue in private nuisance if the interference is likely to cause permanent damage to the property.
Feedback
Well done. The correct answer is C. A tenant can sue in private nuisance as they have the necessary proprietary interest.
The test for remoteness of damage in the tort of private nuisance requires the damage to be of a reasonably foreseeable type.
Is this statement TRUE or FALSE?
True
False
Feedback
Well done. The statement is true. The damage must be of a foreseeable type. In other words, the same test applies as in negligence.
Consider potential defences to an action in private nuisance.
Which ONE of the following statements is CORRECT?
Planning permission is an effective defence to an action in private nuisance.
The fact that the defendant has been committing the nuisance for 15 years is an effective defence to an action in private nuisance.
The fact that the claimant bought his house knowing of the defendant’s nuisance is an effective defence to an action in private nuisance.
The fact that the defendant is authorised by a statute to commit the nuisance is an effective defence to an action in private nuisance.
Feedback
Well done. The correct answer is D. The fact that the defendant is authorised by a statute to commit the nuisance is an effective defence to an action in private nuisance. The other options are not effective defences to a claim in private nuisance.
Which one of the following statements on trespass to land is INCORRECT?
A tenant can sue in trespass to land.
An owner-occupier can sue in trespass to land.
A lodger can sue in trespass to land.
A squatter can sometimes sue for trespass to land.
Feedback
Well done – C is the correct answer. A lodger cannot sue in trespass to land because they do not have possession of the land. All the other persons do have possession rights including a squatter who has a better right to possession than anyone apart from the legal owner and (if any) earlier squatters.
Is the following statement true or false?
In trespass to land the courts apply the same test for remoteness of damage as in negligence and private nuisance.
True
False
Feedback
Well done. The statement is false. The test for remoteness in trespass to land is the direct consequences test from the case Re Polemis. Under this test the defendant is liable for all the direct consequences of his tort even if unforeseeable. This is more onerous to the defendant than the Wagon Mound test.
Consider the types of harm covered by the tort of private nuisance.
Which one of the following statements is most likely to be INCORRECT?
Loss of sleep is a type of harm covered by private nuisance.
A heart attack is a type of harm covered by private nuisance.
Damage to trees is a type of harm covered by private nuisance.
Damage to the foundations of a house is a type of harm covered by private nuisance.
Feedback
Well done. The correct answer is B . Private nuisance does not cover personal injury.
In which of the following situations could there be a possible claim in private nuisance?
To celebrate a special event X lights a bonfire in his garden. Smoke drifts over the garden of his neighbour Y. X is not in the habit of lighting bonfires and this is a one-off event.
X lights a bonfire in his garden every Sunday to burn garden rubbish. Smoke and fumes always drift over Y’s garden and spoil her pleasure in sitting there.
X’s one-off celebratory bonfire was carelessly constructed so it collapsed onto Y’s fence and burnt it down.
Feedback
Well done. The correct answer is B. This situation is a continuing state of affairs which is potentially actionable in private nuisance.
A is wrong as there would be no claim in private nuisance as there is no continuing state of affairs.
C is wrong because there is no claim in private nuisance as this is a single event. However a single event which causes tangible damage could be actionable in negligence.
Which ONE of the following statements is INCORRECT?
A lodger cannot sue in private nuisance.
A member of the owner’s family cannot sue in private nuisance.
A tenant cannot sue in private nuisance.
The owner’s husband or wife cannot sue in private nuisance.
A landlord can only sue in private nuisance if the interference is likely to cause permanent damage to the property.
Feedback
Well done. The correct answer is C. A tenant can sue in private nuisance as they have the necessary proprietary interest.
The test for remoteness of damage in the tort of private nuisance requires the damage to be of a reasonably foreseeable type.
Is this statement TRUE or FALSE?
True
False
Feedback
Well done. The statement is true. The damage must be of a foreseeable type. In other words, the same test applies as in negligence.
Consider potential defences to an action in private nuisance.
Which ONE of the following statements is CORRECT?
Planning permission is an effective defence to an action in private nuisance.
The fact that the defendant has been committing the nuisance for 15 years is an effective defence to an action in private nuisance.
The fact that the claimant bought his house knowing of the defendant’s nuisance is an effective defence to an action in private nuisance.
The fact that the defendant is authorised by a statute to commit the nuisance is an effective defence to an action in private nuisance.
Feedback
Well done. The correct answer is D. The fact that the defendant is authorised by a statute to commit the nuisance is an effective defence to an action in private nuisance. The other options are not effective defences to a claim in private nuisance.
Which one of the following statements on trespass to land is INCORRECT?
A tenant can sue in trespass to land.
An owner-occupier can sue in trespass to land.
A lodger can sue in trespass to land.
A squatter can sometimes sue for trespass to land.
Feedback
Well done – C is the correct answer. A lodger cannot sue in trespass to land because they do not have possession of the land. All the other persons do have possession rights including a squatter who has a better right to possession than anyone apart from the legal owner and (if any) earlier squatters.
Is the following statement true or false?
In trespass to land the courts apply the same test for remoteness of damage as in negligence and private nuisance.
True
False
Feedback
Well done. The statement is false. The test for remoteness in trespass to land is the direct consequences test from the case Re Polemis. Under this test the defendant is liable for all the direct consequences of his tort even if unforeseeable. This is more onerous to the defendant than the Wagon Mound test.
