Land-based torts (nuisance, RvF, trespass) Flashcards
What are the 4 torts considered under land-based torts?
- Private nuisance
- Public nuisance
- The rule in Rylands v Fletcher; and
- Trespass to land
What is a private nuisance?
Any continuous activity/state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with C’s (use or enjoyment of) land
Idea is to balance right of D to do what they like on their land and right of C to enjoy their land without being disturbed by D’s activities
What must you have to sue in private nuisance?
A legal interest in the land affected: Owner, tenant in possession, grantees of easement, licensee w exclus possesion
Hunter - tower in Canary Wharf interfered with 100s of people’s TV reception - some claims failed as they ahd no legal interest in land affected e.g. family members living with the homeowner
Who can be sued in private nuisance?
3 different people (potentially)
- Creator of the nuisance (might not be in position to end nuisance or occupier of land)
- Occupier of land from which nuisance originates (liable for their nuisances and sometimes others)
- Owner of land
Must the creator of the nuisance be in position to end nuisance or occupying the land to be to be sued?
No - can be sued even if they cannot end it or they are not the occupier of the land
Aside from nuisances they create, what else can an occupier of the land be liable for?
- Independent contractors
- For trespassers/visitors/predecessors in title
- Naturally occurring nuisances
When will an occupier be liable for the nuisance caused by an independent contractor?
Where independent contractors perform tasks that cause inevitable nuisance
Matania - building work that meant music teacher nearby could not earn living for 3 months
What two things must an occupier do to be liable for nuisance caused by trespassers/visitors/predecessors in title?
Not both at same time
If they continued or adopted the nuisance
Sedleigh-Denfield - water pipe unlawfully put under D’s land by local authority which blocked and flooded C’s land - D liable as he had used poorly maintained pipe
What does it mean for an occupier to continue or adopt a nuisance?
Continue = knew or should have known of existence and failed to take reasonable steps to end it
Adopt = make use of the thing causing the nuisance
When will an occupier be liable for naturally occurring nuisances? What is this subject to?
E.g. lighting starting a fire on their land
Where they knew or ought to have known of danger and failed to take reasonable steps to abate nuisance (subject to not bankrupting themselves and steps being reasonable)
Goldman - lighting struck tree on D’s land starting fire, D put out fire but did not douse embers meaning fire reignited and damaged C’s land = D liable as they had physical and financial means to spray water over embers
When will an owner be liable for a private nuisance?
Will not usually be
2 scenarios
- If they authorised it by actively and directly participating or
- By leasing property in circumstances where there was a high degree of probability that leasing would result in nuisance being created
Coventry - Cs moved into bungalow less than 1km away from D’s noisy motor-sports track, Cs sued occupier and landlord - landlord not liable as they did not authorise it, directly participate it, or lease property in circumstances where there was a high degree of probability that leasing land would result in that nuisance being created
Will knowing how the tenants plan to use the purpose mean a landlord will be liable for private nuisance?
No - tenants could use property in a way that would not create nuisance
What are the 4 elements of private nuisance?
I-R-C-U
Recall: private nuisance = any continuous activity/state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with C’s (use or enjoyment of) land
- Indirect interference
- Recognised damage (to be established by C)
- Continuous act; and
- Unlawful interference
What is an indirect interference?
1st element of private nuisance
Where nuisance starts on D’s land but causes damage/interferes with enjoyment of C’s land e.g. sounds, smells, fumes, vibrations
Intangible interference
E.g. compost heap on X’s land which smells badly from neighbouring land = indirect interference if it caused damege over a period of time
If put compost heap on neighbour’s land = trespass, not nuisance
What 2 types of damage are recoverabe in private nuisance? What must they both be?
2nd element of private nuisance
- Physical damage to property
- Sensible personal discomfort (SPD)
Both must be reasonably foreseeable
Physical damage could be overhanging branches causing physical damage, smoke and fumes from D’s land causing damage to C’s vegetation
What is sensible person discomfort?
Senses of C affected in such a way that C unable to enjoy land e.g. unpleasant odours or noise
Amenity damages; damages enjoyment of property rather than property
What must physical damage and sensible personal discomfort be more than?
- Physical damage more than trivial
- SDP more than fanciful; must materially interfere with human comfort
Can a C claim for personal injury in private nuisance?
No - this would be a tort to person not land
What does it mean for the nuisance to be a continuous act?
3rd element of private nuisance
Nuisance must be continuous; one-off isolated event not usually actionable in private nuisance
One-off isolated events may be means of action in public nuisance/Rylands v Fletcher
What are the 2 exceptions to a continuous act?
I.e. where nuisances can be brief in duration/a single incident
- A single incident caused by an underlying state of affairs
- An activity which creates a state of affirs which gives rise to risk of escape of physically dangerous/damaging material
- e.g. British Celanese - metal strips from outside D factory blew to C’s machines and made them fail - had happened 3 years before and D had received warning - continuing to keep metal strips outside factory provided continuance
- e.g. Crown River - fire from firework display caused extensive property damage - gives rise to risk of escape of damaging material like water, gas and fire
What is an unlawful interference?
4th element of private nuisance
Nuisance must constitute an unlawful interference with C’s land or use/enjoyment of land
What does ‘unlawful’ mean in unlawful interference? Does fault matter?
Unreasonable; courts do not look at fault of D, but whether activity causing nuisance amounts to an unreasonable use of land
If reasonable = D not liable
What if the activity is an unreasonable use of land but the D has exercised reasonable care and skill to avoid it?
Does not matter - if the use is unreasonable the D will be liable
What factors are considered when deciding if D’s interference with land is unreasonable/unlawful?
- Time and duration
- Locality
- Abornmal sensitivity
- Malice
- D’s lack of care
- Excessive behaviour
No one factor is conclusive - looked at together
How can time and duration make interference unreasonable? How does property damage change this?
- Where interference is frequent or for long periods of time; longer it lasts = more likely unreasonable
- If property damage = may find nuisance in termporary/short-lived activity
Which type of loss is the only one relevant for the factor of locality?
SDP (not property damage)
How is locality important in determining whether interference is unlawful?
What is reasonable in residential area is different to what would be unreasonable in an industrial/commercial area et.c
Sturges - Dr complained surgery distrubed by noise/vibrations from D’s premises used for manufacturing confectionary - D’s business held to be a nuisance in a residential area
Can planning permission authorise a nuisance (i.e. will the fact planning permission has been granted mean private nuisance claim can never be brought)? What can precise terms of planning permission do?
I.e. make unlawful interference not unlawful?
- Mere granting of planning permission cannot authorise nuisance and does not give D a defence (would mean depriving rights of residents)
- But precise terms of the planning permission may have bearing on existence of nuisance (e.g. can limit noise-making to certaim time period, decibel)
Coventry - D’s speedway stadium built 40 years ago with planning permission in a very rural area with village being 15 miles from C’s house who was claiming nuisance - SC confirmed planning permission did not authorise nuidance and noise amounted to nuisance given area was overwhelmingly rural - planning permission of no assistance to D in private nuisance claims, as it would deprive property-owner of a right to object what would otherwise be a nuisance
Can planning permission change the locality of an area?
Has been held to, especially where it benefits the community
But still does not authorise!
Gillingham - predominantly residential area became commercial port following plannign permission and Cs complained of interrupted sleep and general disturbance - claim failed as planning permission had changed nature of locality to wholly commercial area which benefitted community
What is the the rule of abnormal sensitivity and does it still exist?
- Where C/C’s property is unusually sensitive, they cannot claim that activities that would not interfere with ordinary occupier are a nuisance
- Courts have doubted - if someone is abnormally sensitive then loss is not foreseeable to D - better to see in terms of foreseeability
Robinson - C operated business involving heat sensitive paper above D’s manufacturing buisiness; heat emitted damaged C’s paper - court held that C’s paper abnormally sensitive and ordinary paper would not have been affected so use of D’s land was reasonable
What is the impact of malice on determining unlawful interference?
If D can point to no real justification for their actions and aim is solely to annoy C, this will normally constitute nuisance
Certain amount of conflict inevitable
Christie - C music teacher’s music pervaded D’s house throughout day - D responded by banging walls and shouting when music playing - D’s noise held to be excessive and unreasonably as it was made deliberately and maliciously for purposes of upsetting C (granted injunction)
Regarding considerations of D’s lack of care or excessive behaviour, what are the effects on whether interference unlawful?
Lack of care & excessive behaviour
- If D has a lack of care - e.g. worked until someone complained, own convenience prevails above others - this is likely to benefit C
- Excessive behaviour - how far removed behaviour is from ‘normal’ - can indicate that they are being unreasonable and creating a nuisance (where C owns 100s of pheasants)
What 7 defences are available for private nuisance?
- 20 years’ prescription - D has earned right to commit nuisance
- Statutory authority
- Consent
- Contributory negligence
- Act of third party
- Acts of God
- Necessity - usual principles apply
For D to earn the right to commit nuisance through 20 years’ prescription defence, what must be the case (what must C have had?)? Need the nuisance be continuous?
- Must have been an actionable nuisance for 20 years or more (C has had grounds to bring claim for this period)
- Need not be continuous, length of time is important here
Coventry - stadium constructed in 1975 and C moved in in 2006; D could not rely on prescription as it could not show that they had created a nuisance for 20 years or more, was only first complained about in 1992 (16 years before C brought proceedings)
Where will D escape liability if it is carried out on basis of statutory authority?
Where they have exercised all due care and nuisance is inevitable consequence of activity
Is planning permission a form of statutory authority?
No!!!!!
What must the C have consented to exactly for D to run this defence?
Re defence of private nuisance
The activity causing the nuisance