Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort Law > Land based torts > Flashcards

Land based torts Flashcards

1
Q

Torts relating to land

A
  • Private nuisance
  • Public nuisance
  • Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Private Nuisance

A

Anycontinuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a claimant’s land or their use of that land.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Most significant land based tort

A

Nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Basis of private nuisance

A

Use of one’s land that causes an interference with the use and enjoyment of another’s land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Who can sue in private nuisance

A
  • Must have a possessionary or proprietary interest in the land
  • Permission to use the land is insufficient
    Claim of nuisance arises from interference with one’s land
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Key case for who can sue in private nuisance

A

Hunter and Other v Canary Wharf Ltd 1997

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Hunter and Other v Canary Wharf Ltd 1997

A

700 claimants TV reception
Canary Wharf interfere
Family members living with homeowner - claim failed
Had to have a legal interest in the land affected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Legal interest in land

A

Owner, tenant in possession, grantees of an easement, licensee with exclusive possession

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Who can be sued in private nuisance?

A
  • Creator of the nuisance
  • Occupier of the land from which the nuisance originates
  • Owner of the land
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Creator of the nuisance

A

Can be sued even though they may not be in a position to end the nuisance, or be the occupier of the land.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Occupier of the land from which the nuisance originates

A
  • Can be liable for nuisances created by themselves an others
  • Usually not liable for nuisance caused by others
  • Can be in certain cirucmstances.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Occupier may be held liable for the nuisance created by others when…

A
  • Independent contractors
  • Trespassers / visitors / predecessors in title
  • Naturally occurring nuisances.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Private nuisance: Occupier liability - Independent contractors
CASE

A

Matania v National Provincial Bank 1936

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Matania v National Provincial Bank 1936

A
  • Occupier liable for forseeable excessive noise and dust caused by contractors.
  • Building work is not normally nuisance.
  • Temporary interference (3 months) impacted music teacher;s living.
    Liability for inevitable nuisance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Private nuisance: Occupier liability - Trespassers / visitors / predecessors in title
CASE

A

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Trespassers / visitors / predecessors in title

A

Occupier will be liable if they continued or adopted nuisance

Must have knew or ought to have known of existence and failed to take steps to end it.

Occupiers adopt a nuisance if they make use of the thing causing the nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan 1940

A

Defendant liable a nuisance created by trespasser.

Waterpipe had been unlawfully put under the defendant’s land by local authority.

Defendant used poorly maintained pipe and was liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Private nuisance: Occupier liability - Naturally occurring nuisance
CASE

A

Goldman v Hargrave

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Goldman v Hargrave

A

Liable when they knew or ought to have known of a danger and failed to take reasonable steps to abate the nuisance

  • Fire re-ignited
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Duty to abate naturally occurring nuisance is subject…

A
  • Means of the occupier
  • Not expected to bankrupt themselves
  • Consider what is fair and reasonable
  • Consider competing demands on the public purse.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Private nuisance: Owner (landlord)
CASE

A
  • Landlord would not usually be liable for a private nuisance unless the Coventry v Lawrence 2014 exception applies
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Coventry v lawrence 2014

A

Claimant moved into bungalow < 11km from race track.
Sued occupier and landlord

Landlord not liable.
- Hadn’t authorised by actively and directly participating in it.
- Or leased it and created the nuisance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Whether a landlord has participated in nuisance isa question of….

A

FACT

  • Dependent on events taking place after the granting of the lease.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Purpose of private nuisance

A

Balance two competing interests

  • Right of defendant to do what they like on their land.
  • Rjght of claimant to enjoy their land without being discussed,
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Bamford v Turnley 1862!

A

“Rule of give and take and live and let live”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Two preliminaries of private nuisance

A
  • Continuous activity or state of affairs causing substantial and unreasonable interference
  • Legal interests
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Four elements of the tort of private nuisance

A
  • Indirect interference
  • Recognised damage
  • Continuous act
  • Unlawful interference
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Private Nuisance: Indirect interference

A
  • Indirect interference with use or enjoyment with claimants land.
  • Sounds, smell, fumes vibrations
    intangible interference
  • Can include failure to act which result in lost.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Private Nuisance: Recognised damage (loss)

A
  • Suffered some damage
    St Helen’s Smelting Co v William Tipping
  • Physical damage to property.
  • Sensible Personal Discomfort. Senses of the claimant are affected so that they are unable to enjoy their land = amenity damage
  • Reasonably forseeable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

St Helens

A
  • Smoke and fumes from copper smelting plant
  • Damage to claimant’s property
  • Prevented use and enjoyment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather 1994

A

Type of damage must have been reasonably forseeable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Hunter

A

Claimant cannot claim for personal injury given that private nuisance is a tort against land not the person.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Mitchell v Darley Main Colliery 1886

A

Any physical damage to property must be more than de minimus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Walter v Selfe

A

Any SPD must be more than fanciful and materially interfere with ordinary human comfort

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Private nuisance: Continuous act

A

General rule is that the nuisance must be continuous.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Four elements of tort in private nuisance

A
  • Indirect interference
  • Recognised damage
  • Continuous Act
  • Unlawful interference.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Private nuisance: Indirect Interference

A
  • Indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of claimant’s land (noise, sounds, smells, fumes and vibrations)
    Intangible Interference
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Private nuisance: Recognized damage

A

St Helen’s Smelting Co v William Tipping
* Physical Damage
* Sensible Personal Discomfort
* Must be Reasonably forseeable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Sensible Personal Discomfort

A

Senses of claimant are affected, unable to enjoy the land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

St Helen’s Smelting Co v William Tipping

A
  • Smoke and fumes from defendant’s copper smelting plant caused damage to vegetation
  • Prevented the use and enjoyment of their property.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather 1994

A

Type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Private Nuisance: Recognised Damage - forseeablility

A
  • Must be reasonably forseeable
  • Can recover any consequential losses flowing from recoverable damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Can you claim for personal injury under private nuisance?

A

No

Private nuisance is a tort against land, not the person
Hunter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Hunter

A

Cannot claim personal injury for land based torts.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Mitchell v Darley Main Colliery

A

Any physical damage must be more than de minimus (trivial)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Privat Nuisance - damage

A
  • Reasonably forseeable
  • Cannot claim for personal injury
  • More than de minimus = not trivial
  • More than fanciful = materially interfere
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Walter v Selfe

A

SPD must be more than fanciful and materially interfere with ordinary human discomfort

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Exceptions to the general rule that must be a continuous act

A
  • Single incident caused by an underlying state of affairs
  • Activity that creates a state of affairs giving rise to the risk of escape of physically dangerous material
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Exceptions to continuous act: Underlying state of affairs case

A

British Celanese v AH Hunt 1969

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

British Celanese v AH Hunt

A
  • Metal foil strips blown from factory
  • Came into contact with electricity substation
  • Power failure
  • Should have known of likely consequences - not a first occurrence
    persistent habit of storing the metal strips outside of the factory provided the continuance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Exceptions to continuous act: State of affairs creating risk of escape of physically dangerous / damaging material

A

Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd 1996

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd 1996

A
  • Fact-sensitive decision
  • Firework display and resulting fire
  • Held “obiter” to be a private nuisance
  • Water, gas or fire = private nuisance available *
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Private nuisance: Unlawful Interference

A
  • Unlawful = unreasonableness
    Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan 1940

A

Reasonableness is the “ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or in a particular society”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Reasonableness

A

Ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or a particular society
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Purpose of private nuisance

A

Balance two competing interests

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Factors balanced when deciding if unlawful interference

A
  • Time and duration
  • Locality
  • Abnormal sensitivity
  • Malice
  • Defendant’s lack of care
  • Excessive behaviour
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Unlawful interference:
Time and duration

A
  • Frequent
  • Long periods of time
  • More likely to be unreasonable
    Kennaway v Thompson 1981
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Kennaway v Thompson 1981

A
  • When nuisance takes place
  • How long
  • How frequently
  • Motorboat and racing club.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

When loss is property damage only

A

Court may find nuisance even if caused by a temporary or short lived activity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Unlawful Interference: Locality

A
  • Locality of the neighbourhood
  • SPD only
  • Character of the area
    Sturges v Bridgman
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Sturges v Bridgman

A
  • Noise and vibrations coming from confectionary manufacturer
  • Nuisance in residential area
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

Thesiger LJ

A

“would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”

Sturges v Bridgman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

Adams v Ursell 1913

A
  • Fumes caused by fish and chip shop
  • = Nuisance in residential area

What is a nuisance in one place, does not mean it would be another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

Planning Permission and locality

A

Planning Permission may alter the character of the area

Changin what would count as a nuisance.

Gilingham Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

Gillingham Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd

A
  • Residential area became a commercial port following PP
  • Heavy traffic, noise and fumes
  • PP changed nature of locality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Granting of permission does not authorise nuisance

A

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

A
  • PP to build pig sheds
  • 11 meters from claimants holiday cottages
    *PP no defence for private nuisance
  • Extension did not change locality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

Coventry v Lawrence 2014

A

Speedway stadium built with PP in 1975
* Overwhelmingly rural area - Nearest village 15 miles from claimant’s house
* SC confirmed Wheeler
* PP did not authorise nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

Planning permission does not determine private rights

A

PP is of no assistance to the defendant in private nuisance claim
* Precise terms of PP may have bearing on un/reasonableness of land use.
* Relevance to remedies.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

Following Coventry v Lawrence

A

Seems the precise terms of the PP may have a bearing on nuisance.

72
Q

Unlawful Interference:
Abnormal Sensitivity

A
  • Cannot claim that activities that would not interfere with ordinary occupier
  • They are a nuisance to them alone
    Robinson v Kilvert
73
Q

Robinson v Kilvert

A
  • Heat sensitive paper
  • Shared premises
  • Heat emitted from manufacturing premises damaged paper.
    Paper abnormally sensitive = no nuisance
74
Q

Abnormal sensitivity vs reasonable occupier

A
  • Reasonable occupier: can claim for full extent even if increased by sensitivity = thin skull rule
  • Abnormal sensitivity = no nuisance
75
Q

McKinnon Industries v Walker

A
  • Commercial florist and nursery
  • Orchids = sensitive
  • Sued in private nuisance
  • Emissions killed veg.
  • Ordinary flowers affected, therefore could claim for the sensitive orchids.
76
Q

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v CJ Morris

A

Robinson was not overturned. But disapproved of.
* Signalling system interfered with electric guitars in recording studio
* Doubted abnormal sensitivity.
Reasonable Forseeability

77
Q

Unlawful Interference: Malice

A
  • Some conflict is inevitable
  • If they can show a legitimate reason,, court less likely to interfere.
  • If aim to annoy client = issue of malice = nuisance.

Christie v Davey

78
Q

Christie v Davey

A
  • Christe a music teacher
  • Other person made deliberate noise
  • Maliciously to upset
  • Not legitimate use of land
  • Granted an injunction.
79
Q

Unlawful Interference: Defendant’s lack of care

A

Defendant’s lack of care is likely to count in the claimant’s favour

Andreae v Selfridge and Co Ltd

80
Q

Andreae v Selfridge and Co Ltd

A
  • Building work next to hotel
  • Lack of reasonable care not taken
  • Defendant’s attitude was to work until someone complained
    = Nuisance
81
Q

Unlawful Interference: Excessive Behaviour

A
  • How far removed from normal
  • If excessive = unreasonable and a nuisance?

Farrer v Nelson

82
Q

Farrer v Nelson

A
  • Pheasants
  • Gained access to claimant’s farm
  • Damaged grain and crops
    Became a nuisance when reached the hundreds and became excessive
83
Q

Defenses to private nuisance

A
  • 20 years prescription
  • Statutory authority
  • Consent
  • Contributory negligence
  • Act of third party
  • Act of god
84
Q

Defenses to private nuisance:
20 years’ prescription

A
  • If actionable nuisance for more than 20 years
  • No action taken
  • Length of time claimant had to complain key, not the activity
  • Earned right to continue
85
Q

Sturges

A

Confectionary had been in existence for 20 years.

Only became a nuisance after doctors.

  • Defence prescription not available
86
Q

Does the 20 years have to be continuous?

A

No it does not have to be continuous.

87
Q

Defenses to private nuisance:
Statutory Authority

A

If on the basis of statutory duty, escape liability
* If all due care and nuisance exercised.
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd

88
Q

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd

A
  • Private Act of Parliament
  • Refinery in Wales
  • Complained of noise and vibrations.
  • HoL held was authorised by statute and nuisance inevitable
    = full defence
89
Q

Defenses to private nuisance:
Consent

A
  • Claimant agrees to the nuisance = defence
  • Know danger to property (by word or deed)
  • Willingness to accept risks
    Pwllbach Colliery v Woodman
90
Q

Pwllbach Colliery v Woodman

A

Claimant consented to colliery activity.
Not to the coal dust disruption

  • Must have specifically consented the activity causing nuisance.
91
Q

Defenses to private nuisance:
Contributory Negligence

A

Usual rules of contributory negligence.

Trevett v Lee

92
Q

Trevett v Lee

A

House not connected to a main water
* Garden hosepipe
* Saw hosepipe
* Tripped anyway
* Contributory negligence
Public law case, but same principles apply

93
Q

Defenses to private nuisance:
Acts of Third Party

A
  • Nuisance created by third party for whom Defendant bears no responsibility.
  • Not liable unless adopts nuisance
    Sedleigh-Denfield
94
Q

Defenses to private nuisance:
Acts of God

A
  • Nuisance from Acts of God = not liable
  • Unless adopt / continue responsibility

Nichols v Marsland

95
Q

Nichols v Marsland

A
  • Defendant’s artificial pools flooded and damaged property.
  • Flooding caused by unusual rainfall.
  • Complete defence.
96
Q

Ineffective defence: Moving to the nuisance

A

The argument of “moving to the nuisance”
Does not justify nuisance

Miller and Another v Jackson and Others
Coventry

97
Q

Miller and Another v Jackson and Others

A

Cricket club had been there for more than 70 years.

Houses build on adjacent land

Still = nuisance.

98
Q

Coventry

A

Where the claimant uses the property for the same purposes as predecessors, the argument of coming to nuisance fails.

99
Q

Coventry Obiter

A

Defendant may be able to argue claim should fail if activity became nuisance after defendant’s change of use.

100
Q

Remedies for private nuisance

A

Injunction
Damages
Abatement

101
Q

Remedies for private nuisance: Injunction

A
  • Primary remedy
  • Can be full or partial
  • Partial = compromise
102
Q

Partial injunction

A

Where the defendant’s activities are of public benefit.

Kennaway

103
Q

Kennaway
Injunction

A

Partial Injunction
Was popular with public.
Asked for defendant to stick to timetable

104
Q

Remedies for private nuisance: Damages

A

Type of damages depends on type of loss

105
Q

Remedies for private nuisance: Damages

Actual physical loss

A
  • Repair or renewal
  • Consequential Economic Loss.
106
Q

Remedies for private nuisance: Damages

SPD

A

Awarded in lieu of injunction.

But injunction is primary

107
Q

Deciding if an injunction should be granted

A
  • Defendant to put argument
  • Weigh competing factors
  • Consider public interest
  • PP may support argument for public benefit.
108
Q

How are damages for SPD calculated when in lieu of an injunction?

A
  • Nominally based on the reduction in value of the claimant’s property.
109
Q

Dennis v MoD 2003

A
  • 2 miles from RAF base
  • 70 jets per day = nuisance
  • Damages in lieu of injuction as defence of nation
  • Awarded £950k
  • Amount depreciated by aircraft noise.
110
Q

Miller v Jackson
Damages

A
  • Damages in lieu of injunction
  • Balance rights to enjoy property and rights of public to engage in lawful pastimes
  • Public interest outweighed.
111
Q

Remedies for private nuisance: Abatement

A
  • Self help
  • Claimant acts to stop nuisance.
  • Enter land, but do not remove anything.
  • Notice to be given, but need not be given if it is an emergency
  • Defence to trespass
112
Q

Public Nuisance

A

“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 PYA Quarries

113
Q

Attorney General v PYA Quarries

A
  • Dust and vibrations from defendant quarry
  • Sufficiently widespread to be public nuisance
    = 30 households.
114
Q

What amounts to a public nuisance

A

Sufficiently widespread

115
Q

Legal nature of public nuisance

A
  • Crime
  • Occasionally a tort when harm is suffered by a section of the community, or the commnity as a whole.
116
Q

Tort of public nuisance

A

Many areas now under statute.

Residual method of dealing with interferences that cannot be dealt with elsewhere.
Or if they wish to claim damages

117
Q

Who can sue in public nuisance

A
  • Local Authority
  • Attorney General
  • Individual
118
Q

Who can sue in public nuisance?
Local Authority

A
  • May sue on own behalf
  • Or to protect inhabitants in its area.
119
Q

Who can sue in public nuisance?
Attorney General

A

Where a class of people are affected, but not forthcoming

AG may bring a claim on their behalf.

120
Q

Who can sue in public nuisance?
An individual

A

Claimant need not have an interest in land affected.

But can only sue in limited circumstances.

Must be able to show they have damaged special damage

121
Q

Ricket v Met Railway

A

For a member of the public to sue, must show they have suffered special damage

122
Q

What is special damage?

A

Over and above the rest of the class, or in a different way to the rest of the class.

Must be direct and substantial

123
Q

Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK Plc

A

Court stated special damage must be direct and substantial

124
Q

Lyon Sons & Co v Gulliver

A

Queue outside the claimant’s cafe twice a day.
* Inconvenience (obstruction of highway)
* Special Damage (Pure Economic Loss)

125
Q

Elements of public nuisance

A
  • Act or omission
  • One-off event or continuous
  • Class of His Majesty’s Subjects
  • Materially affects comfort and convenience
126
Q

Elements of public nuisance: Act or Omission

A

Liability can exist for omissions and acts.

Contrasts to negligence where omissions are generally not actionable.

127
Q

Elements of public nuisance One-off event or private nuisance

A

Unlike private nuisance, can be one-off or isolated event.

128
Q

Elements of public nuisance Class of subjects

A
  • Sufficiently widespread
  • Depends on facts of case
  • Not necessary that every member of the class has been affected
129
Q

PYA Quarries

A
  • No exact number of people = class
  • Depends on facts of case
  • Not every member of class has been affected, just a cross section.
130
Q

R v Rimmington

A
  • Court held a “class” refers to a significant section of the community.
  • Suffers “common injury” = “same time and in the same location”
131
Q

Rimmington

A

Sent racially offensive items across the country.
These people were not a “class” in the way required by public nuisance
“same time and place”

132
Q

Elements of public nuisance: materially affects

A
  • Comfort and convenience
  • Property damage, CE, PI & inconvenience
133
Q

Inconvenience

A

Must be more than trivial

Jan de Nul (UK) Ltd v Royale Belge SA

Annoyance or irritation that is material

Must be reasonably forseeable (Wagon Mound)

134
Q

Can PI be claimed in Private Nuisance?

135
Q

Can PI be claimed in Public Nuisance?

136
Q

Benjamin v Storr

A

Coffee House
* Auctioneers created obstruction and inconvenience by loading and unloading
* Direct and substantial

137
Q

Defences for public nuisance

A
  • Same defences for private nuisance.
  • Except for prescription
  • Main defence is statutory authority
138
Q

Remedies for private nuisance

A
  • Injunctions and damages
  • If claim is brought by Attorney General or Local Authority then injunction only.
139
Q

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack

A

Nuisance = defecating pigeons
* Public nuisance
* Defendants had to “pigeon-proof” bridge

140
Q

Castle v St Augustine’s Link

A

Claimant was struck by a golf ball.
* Class of persons = highway users
* Individual suffered special damage

141
Q

Rylands v Fletcher

A
  • Independent contractors
  • Reservoir for mill
  • Contractor failed to block of mineshaft
  • Flooded mine
  • Action to recover flood damage
    No evidence of negligence as had not known of mineshafts
  • Held liable
142
Q

Blackburn J

A
  • Bringing onto own land
  • Collecting to keep anything likely to do mischief
    at his peril
  • Answerable to all damage that is a natural consequence of escape.
143
Q

Ryelands - who can sue.

A

Proprietary interest in the land affected (Hunter)

144
Q

Ryelands - who can be sued.

A

Person who brings, collects and keeps the “thing” and / or
person who has control over the land

145
Q

Ryelands - loss tupe

A

Must suffer some damage
* Property damage
* CEL

146
Q

Rylands v Fletcher Rule

A

= a sub species of private nuisance

Transco v Stockport Met BC

147
Q

Transco v Stockport Met BC

A

Rylands v Fletcher is a sub species of private nuisance

148
Q

Elements of Rylands v Fletcher

A
  • D brings onto land and accumulates there
  • For their own purposes
  • Anything likely to do mischief if it escapes
  • Escape
  • Forseeable harm
  • Non-natural use of land
149
Q

Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
Brings onto land and accumulates

A

Defendant must have voluntarily brought something onto the land

Giles v Walker

150
Q

Giles v Walker

A
  • No liability for the spread of thistles from defendantw land
  • Grew naturally
  • Not brought onto land.
151
Q

Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
For their own purposes, anything likely to do mischief (damage) if it escapes

A
  • Capable of causing damage
  • If it escapes
  • Water, acid and explosives

Transco v Stockport Met BC

152
Q

Transco v Stockport Met Borough Council

A
  • Wide ranging effect of term “anything likely to do mischief” circumvented
  • Pipe leaked and caused embankment collapse
  • Left Transco pipe unprotected.
  • Cost £94k to stop fracturing.
  • HoL held that exceptionally high risk - very high threshold not satisfied.
153
Q

Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
Escape

A
  • Must escap from land over which the defendant has control
  • Can be slow and over a period of time
  • Must be collected by the defendant.

Stannard v Gore

154
Q

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc

A

Can be slow and over a period of time

155
Q

Stannard v Gore

A
  • Defendant stored tyres on his property
  • Caught and spread
  • Claim failed as it was the tyres brought onto the land
    not the fire
156
Q

Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream

A

Where fuel escapes and causes fire
It is both fuel and fire escaping.

157
Q

Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
Escape caused forseeable harm

A
  • Need not have seen the escape.
  • Only be aware of the damage in the event it escaped.
  • Will be liable even if take reasonable care
    Cambridge Water Co v Easter Counties Leather
158
Q

Cambridge Water Co v Easter Counties Leather

A
  • Leather chemical seeped through concrete floor
  • Into the soil below
  • Travelled 1.3 miles away into borehole.
  • Forced to relocate at £1 mill.
    Claim failed
159
Q

Cambridge Water Co v Easter Counties Leather

Claim failed

A
  • Pollution to borehole 1.3 miles away not reasonably forseeable
160
Q

Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
Non-natural use of land

A

Non-ordinary use of land
* Depends time, place and context of the use of the land.
* All the circumstances must be taken into account when

161
Q

Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
Non-natural use of land

Transco

A

HoL held that piping water was not extraordinary and unusal.

162
Q

Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
Non-natural use of land

Colour Quest

A

Non natural because of the quantity of oil being kept there

163
Q

Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
Non-natural use of land

Cambridge Water

A

HoL (obiter) the storage of substantial quantities of chem on industrial premises.
* Almost classic case of non natural use.

164
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: Defences

A

Addition of Common Benefit
* Common benefit
* Act or default of the claimant
* Statutory authority
* Act of third party
* contributory negligence
* Consent.

165
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
Common benefit

A
  • Claimant agreed to accumulation of material
  • No liability
  • Consent can be implied if accumulated for common benefit

Eg Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

166
Q

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

A

Shop flooded by sprinkler system from neighbouring theatre.
This was for equal benefit.
Therefore not liable

167
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: Defenses
Act or default of the claimant

A
  • If the escape was wholly claimants action = no liability

Dunn v Birmingham Canal Co (Claimant dug under defendants canal and caused flood)

168
Q

Dunn v Birmingham Canal Co

A

Claimant dug under defendants canal and caused flood

169
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
Statutory Authority

A
  • Same rules a private nuisance.
    Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co
  • Statutory power authorised the laying down of water pipe, under obligation to maintain high pressure in water main.
170
Q

Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co

A

Statutory power authorised the laying down of water pipe, under obligation to maintain high pressure in water main.

= rely on defence

171
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
Acts of Third Party

A
  • Defendant will not be liable if
  • Escape arose through the unforseeable act of a stranger over whom they had no control

Rickards v Lothian

172
Q

Rickards v Lothian

A

Third party deliberately blocked the waste pipe and left the tap running which led to flooding of the claimants property.

Defendant not liable as would not have reasonably known.

173
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
Acts of God

A

Natural occurrence which could not have been reasonably forseen.

174
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
Acts of God

Transco

A

Must not be realistically possible for a human to reasonably guard against or prevent the event by any amount of foresignt, pain and care

175
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
Acts of God

Nichols v marsland

A

Defendant had pools on land formed by damming a natural stream which flowed through property.
* Rainfall broke banks, four bridges swept away.
* Defendant not liable for unforseen act of nature

176
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: Remedies

A
  • Damages - most common
  • Injunctions

Loss is commonly property damage and CEL

Tort Law (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions