Land Law Flashcards
Those who can sue in private nuisance must have “exclusive possession of the land”
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Where the nuisance has been “adopted” or continued the occupier will be liable
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan
The occupier will be liable for the nuisances created by his visitors
Lippiat v Gloucestershire CC
The occupier will be liable for the nuisances created by natural events
Leakey v National Trust
Landlords are not generally liable unless they are in charge of repairs
Payne v Rogers
Landlords will be liable where they have expressly or impliedly allowed the nuisance
Tetley v Chitty
What are the two elements to prove in private nuisance?
1.That there is interference with the use and enjoyment of the land
2. That the interference is unlawful
Read v Lyons
What are the three types of interference?
- Encroachment
- Direct physical injury to land
- Nuisance by interference with quiet enjoyment
What is nuisance by interference with quiet enjoyment?
The interference must be “reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind in a particular society”
A continuous state of affairs is needed
Spicer v Smee
“Dainty modes of living” is not an interference
Walter v Selfe
Loss of a view isn’t an interference
Aldred’s case
What are five factors to decide whether an interference is lawful?
- Extent of harm (Matania v National Bank)
- Whether the nuisance is continuous?
- What is the character of the neighbourhood (Studges v Bridgman)
- Has there been malice? Hollywood Silver Fox Farm?
- Is there a “dainty mode of living” Walter v Selfe
If the claimant is abnormally sensitive the court will not lower the standards of unlawfulness
Robinson v Kilvert
Business loss may be claimable if some damage is recoverable
Andreae v Selfridge
The test for remoteness in private nuisance is…
Cambridge Water
Statutory authority may authorise a nuisance
Allen v Gulf Oil
Loss in value of the land is the normal way to ascertain discomfort
Hunter v Canary Wharf
An injunction is at the courts discretion. Two contradictory cases
Miller v Jackson
AND
Kennaway v Thomas
Planning permission is an inoperative defence
Wheeler v Saunders
What are the two elements needed to prove trespass to land
- Intentional interference
2. Direct interference
A claimant must have the right to exclude others from the land
Monsanto v Tilly (Licensee)
Acting in excess of permission is trespass
The Calgarth
What is the remoteness test in trespass to land?
Re Polemis, the direct consequences test
