Land Torts Flashcards
The defendant obtained planning permission to extend their steel manufacturing factory. The factory is now just 50 metres from the claimant’s house. The claimant can no longer enjoy their property given the constant noise created by the lorries continuously arriving and leaving from the defendant’s factory. Which of the following is correct in relation to the tort of private nuisance?
The planning permission will not authorise the nuisance. However, the terms of the planning permission may have a bearing on whether or not a nuisance exists.
The claimant cannot sue in private nuisance as the defendant had planning permission to extend their factory. The noise created is therefore reasonable.
The planning permission is completely immaterial to whether there has been private nuisance.
The planning permission will have changed the locality of the area from residential to commercial and there will therefore be no actionable private nuisance.
The courts will consider whether the planning permission justifies the nuisance when assessing whether the defendant’s use of their land is reasonable.
The planning permission will not authorise the nuisance. However, the terms of the planning permission may have a bearing on whether or not a nuisance exists.
This is the correct answer. The planning permission does not make the defendant’s use of their land reasonable. The courts might consider the terms of the planning permission in order to help them decided whether the use of the land is reasonable. For example, if the planning permission allows the factory to operate between 9am and 3pm, and the lorries are arriving and leaving outside of these hours, this could indicate that the use of land is unreasonable.
Rosie has just opened a yoga business next to a hairdresser. The hairdresser has operated at that site for 21 years. Rosie is finding it impossible to run her yoga business given the high level of noise made by the hairdresser. Prior to Rosie, her yoga premises were occupied by a small chocolate making company for 30 years. Which of the following is correct in the law of private nuisance?
The hairdresser can rely on the defence of prescription and consent.
The hairdresser will be able to rely on the defence of prescription but unable to argue that Rosie moved to the nuisance.
The hairdresser can rely on the defence of prescription and contributory negligence.
The hairdresser will be unable to rely on the defence of prescription and will be unable to argue that Rosie moved to the nuisance.
The hairdresser will be able to rely on the defence of prescription and will be able to argue that Rosie moved to the nuisance.
The hairdresser will be unable to rely on the defence of prescription and will be unable to argue that Rosie moved to the nuisance.
The hairdresser cannot rely on the defence of prescription as their activity only became a nuisance when Rosie moved in next door. We are told that she has only just done this. The 20 years starts running from when the activity becomes a nuisance. Moving to the nuisance is not currently a defence to a private nuisance claim.
Simon buys a house with a huge garden. Fifteen years before Simon purchased the house, the local authority installed a water pipe at the very back of his garden. It was not installed properly and frequently leaks causing flooding on the next-door neighbour’s property. Simon is unaware of the water pipe or that it is leaking as his neighbour has not mentioned the flooding to him.
Which defence/s might Simon be able to rely upon if his neighbour sues him in the law of private nuisance?
Act of a third party.
Consent.
Prescription.
Act of God.
Statutory authority.
Act of a third party.
The nuisance has been created by a third party (the local authority) for whom Simon bears no responsibility. He has not carried on the nuisance nor is it reasonable for him to put a stop to it as he is unaware of the pipe and that it is leaking.
Mishal has a party at her house. Her friends park their cars across many of Mishal’s neighbours’ driveways so the neighbours cannot get out. Gita is a beautician who visits her clients at their houses. She is parked in one of her client’s driveways when it is blocked by Mishal’s friend’s car. As a result, she cannot leave for the rest of the afternoon and so she misses her remaining appointments. She suffers a loss of income.
Which of the following is correct in the tort of public nuisance?
A class of people have been affected by Mishal’s actions. Gita cannot bring a claim as an individual.
A class of people have been affected by Mishal’s actions. Gita cannot bring a claim as she does not own the land affected.
A class of people have been affected by Mishal’s actions. Gita cannot sue Mishal in public nuisance as it was not Mishal’s car blocking the client’s driveway.
A class of people have been affected by Mishal’s actions. Gita can bring a claim for her economic loss as an individual.
A class of people have been affected by Mishal’s actions. Gita cannot bring a claim for economic loss in public nuisance.
A class of people have been affected by Mishal’s actions. Gita can bring a claim for her economic loss as an individual.
This is the correct answer. It is likely a class of people have been affected as we are told that many neighbours have been blocked in. Gita can bring a claim as an individual as she has suffered special damage (i.e. over and above the rest of the class). The class have suffered inconvenience. Gita has suffered inconvenience and economic loss. Economic loss is recoverable in the tort of public nuisance.
As a joke, Troy sends 50 of his friends envelopes full of talcum powder with a note saying ‘anthrax’. Which of the following is correct in the law of public nuisance?
Troy’s friends cannot bring a claim in public nuisance as they consented to Troy’s actions by being his friends.
Troy’s friends cannot bring a claim in public nuisance as they have suffered personal injury.
Troy’s friends cannot bring a claim in public nuisance as they have not suffered a common injury.
Troy’s friends cannot bring a claim in public nuisance as 50 people will not amount to a ‘class’.
Troy’s friends cannot bring a claim in public nuisance as Troy’s acts amount to a crime.
Troy’s friends cannot bring a claim in public nuisance as they have not suffered a common injury.
This is the correct answer. In order to be defined as a ‘class’, the friends must have suffered a ‘common injury’, i.e. be affected at more or less the same time and in the same location. This has not happened here. For example, in R v Rimmington the defendant sent around 500 racially offensive items to people across the country. The people who received the items were not a ‘class’ in the way required by public nuisance.
Max operates a mechanics business from his home. He stores chemicals used to “cure” car body filler. The chemicals are stored in barrels. However, there is a crack in one of the barrels, and the chemicals leak onto Max’s neighbour’s property killing all his neighbour’s plants. The presence of the crack was not known about and the leak was not apparent.
Which of the following is most accurate in the tort of Rylands v Fletcher?
The neighbour will be able to claim for damage to his plants as the harm suffered was foreseeable if the chemicals escaped.
The neighbour will be unable to claim for damage to his plants as the escape of the chemicals was not foreseeable.
The neighbour will be able to claim for damage to his plants as any property damage caused by an escape of a substance from the defendant’s land is recoverable.
The neighbour will be unable to claim for damage to his plants as Max did not know about the leak.
The neighbour will be able to claim for damage to his plants as Max is responsible for anything he brings onto his land.
The neighbour will be able to claim for damage to his plants as the harm suffered was foreseeable if the chemicals escaped.
This is the correct answer. It was reasonably foreseeable that if the chemicals escaped, they could kill plants. The escape does not need to be foreseeable.
During the construction of a housing development, a construction company’s crane regularly swings into the airspace above the next-door neighbour’s property. Which of the following is most accurate in relation to whether this constitutes a trespass to land or not?
This is not trespass to land. The crane activity takes place in the neighbour’s airspace, and this cannot constitute a trespass to land as the neighbour does not own the airspace.
This is not trespass to land. The crane is not interfering with the neighbour’s use of their land.
This is trespass to land. The crane has crossed over the boundary into the neighbour’s property and interference with airspace above another person’s land is trespass to land.
This is not trespass to land. The crane activity takes place above a height that is necessary for the ordinary enjoyment of the neighbour’s land.
This is trespass to land. The crane has crossed over the boundary into the neighbour’s property and is interfering with the neighbour’s use of their land.
This is trespass to land. The crane has crossed over the boundary into the neighbour’s property and interference with airspace above another person’s land is trespass to land.
A student, at a university, uses the library facilities to revise for his PGDL exams. In previous months the library was a quiet and peaceful place in which to work. In recent weeks, the university has formally permitted the rugby society to use the room adjacent to the library to conduct fund raising activities. The fundraising events are considerably noisy, and the student can no longer revise in the library. As a result of his inability to revise adequately, the student fails his exams. The university does not offer the option to resit the exams. The student cannot qualify as a lawyer in this way.
Which of the following statements represents the most appropriate advice to the student?
The student should be advised that he would have a claim in public nuisance but not in either private nuisance or under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
The student should be advised that he would not have a valid claim in private nuisance or public nuisance but should bring the claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
The student should be advised that he would not have a valid claim in either private nuisance, public nuisance or under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
The student should be advised that he would have a valid claim in private nuisance but not in public nuisance or under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
The student should be advised that he would have a valid claim in private nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher but not in public nuisance
The student should be advised that he would not have a valid claim in either private nuisance, public nuisance or under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Yes. This is correct. The student, as a bare licensee, does not have the requisite legal interest in land to enable him to bring a claim in either private nuisance or in Rylands v Fletcher (Hunter v Canary Wharf). As a student, he would be a bare licencee. Additionally, the student would not have a valid claim in public nuisance as there is no evidence on the facts that a class of people (AG v PYA Quarries) have suffered any discomfort or inconvenience. The noise from the fundraising activity appears to only affect the student in question.
A farmer runs a sheep farm at the edge of a small rural village. She has owned and run the farm for 25 years. The sound of the sheep and the shearing is very loud prevents the owner of neighbouring house from using his garden for most of the summer. He has lived in the house for 22 years and has not been too bothered by the noise, but this year the farmer has increased the number of sheep by 50% and the neighbour decides he must do something about it now.
The neighbour visits a local solicitor for advice.
Which of these represents the most accurate legal advice?
The farmer has been causing an actionable nuisance to the neighbour, and the neighbour will not have an actionable claim because they moved to the nuisance.
The farmer has been causing an actionable nuisance to the neighbour, and the farmer is unlikely to have a defence of prescription if there has been significant increase in the nuisance.
The farmer has been causing an actionable nuisance to the neighbour for 22 years and the neighbour has not complained until now, so the farmer will have the defence of prescription.
The farmer has probably not been causing an actionable nuisance due to the rural neighbourhood in which the farm is located.
The farmer has been causing an actionable nuisance for 25 years so may have the defence of prescription.
The farmer has been causing an actionable nuisance to the neighbour, and the farmer is unlikely to have a defence of prescription if there has been significant increase in the nuisance.
This answer best reflects the law in this area. There is an actionable nuisance on the facts and the change in the level of nuisance prevents the defendant from successfully relying on the defence of Prescription. For prescription defence to apply there must be 20 years or more of the actionable nuisance. In these facts the nuisance has only arisen recently. The fact the claimant moved to a nuisance is irrelevant. See Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 for example on this point. Character of the neighbourhood is a factor to be considered, though we don’t have sufficient information here.
A young entrepreneur ran a business from the third floor of a building. An old woman owned the building and leased different parts to other business tenants. A third party person had blocked all the sinks in the lavatory on the fourth floor and turned on all the taps in order to cause a flood. This damaged the young entrepreneur’s stock.
Will the old woman be liable under Rylands v Fletcher?
The old woman will not be liable under Rylands v Fletcher.
The old woman will be liable under Rylands v Fletcher.
The old woman will only be liable under Rylands v Fletcher if the young entrepreneur can establish that there was a clear ‘escape’ of the flooding from the fourth floor property to his property.
The old woman will only be liable under Rylands v Fletcher if the young entrepreneur can establish that there was a natural use of the land.
The old woman will only be liable under Rylands v Fletcher if the young entrepreneur can establish that there was no natural use of the land.
The old woman will not be liable under Rylands v Fletcher.
Correct, the old woman will not be liable. The act which caused the damage was a wrongful act by a third party (Rickards v Lothian) and there was no non-natural use of land.
Two adjacent shops in a shopping centre are occupied by a butcher who smokes his own meat, and a high-end clothes designer. The clothes designer complains that smoke from the smoking process have led to complaints from customers and staff about the strong smell. The clothes designer wants to bring a claim for private nuisance.
In a claim for private nuisance what test will be applied to determine whether there has been an unreasonable interference?
Has the smoke caused physical injury?
Is the smoke unacceptable to the customers of the clothes designer?
Is the smoke more intense than it was a year ago?
Is the smoke unacceptable in the environment of a shopping centre?
Has the butcher acted maliciously?
Is the smoke unacceptable in the environment of a shopping centre?
This answer best reflects the law in relation to private nuisance. As per Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852, the court will consider the locality when looking at whether there was unreasonable interference. The other answers are other factors that might be taken into account, but the key test is whether the smoke is unacceptable in this environment.
A farmer turns a field into a campsite for three months every summer, attracting hundreds of campers. The local villagers are upset by the increased traffic and rubbish caused by the campers and feel that their properties have lost value as a result.
The villagers have been advised that if they were to bring a claim as a class against the farmer in public nuisance their claim should be successful. The local authority or Attorney-General can being the claim on their behalf.
Which of the following best describes the remedies they could ask for?
The villagers could ask for either a full or partial injunction to stop or limit the camping or damages to compensate them for the value they have lost on their properties.
The villagers could only ask for a full or partial injunction to stop or limit the camping because the loss of value on their properties was not reasonably foreseeable.
The villagers could only ask for damages to compensate them for the value they have lost on their properties because camping is in the public interest.
The villagers could ask for both a full or partial injunction to stop or limit the camping and damages to compensate them for the value they have lost on their properties.
The villagers could only ask for a full or partial injunction to stop or limit the camping because those are the only remedies available.
The villagers could only ask for a full or partial injunction to stop or limit the camping because those are the only remedies available.
Correct. As the villagers would bring a claim in public nuisance as a class via their local authority or the Attorney General, a full or partial injunction would be the only remedy available.
A farmer keeps a large silo of grain on his farm, but the grain is leaking from a crack at the bottom of the silo. This has attracted large numbers of rats to the farm, which are then also going into the garden of a neighbouring householder and some have made a nest under the householder’s shed. While putting down rat poison, the householder is bitten by a rat and also develops Weil’s disease from the rats’ urine.
Which of the following provides the best advice as to any action the householder may bring in nuisance?
The householder can bring an action in private nuisance, public nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
The householder cannot bring an action in any of the following: private nuisance, public nuisance or under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
The householder can bring a claim in public nuisance, but not in private nuisance or under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
The householder can bring an action in private nuisance and public nuisance, but not in Rylands v Fletcher
The householder can bring an action in private nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, but not in public nuisance.
The householder cannot bring an action in any of the following: private nuisance, public nuisance or under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Correct: The damage caused is personal injury, which cannot be pursued in private nuisance or Rylands. Furthermore, the farmer has not brought the rats onto his land and accumulated them there. They have been attracted by the grain, which he has accumulated, but the grain has not escaped and caused damage. Although PI may be claimed in public nuisance, there is no action on this basis either as there is no evidence that a class of his majesty’s subjects have been materially affected, of which the householder is a member who has suffered special damage (PI).
Question 1
A solicitor is instructed by a client who bought a house located in a rural location six
months ago. A cement factory is near to the client’s house. Heavy lorries regularly arrive
and leave during the day and night via a public road, making it difficult for the client to
sleep at night.
The client has complained to the factory owner. The factory owner has responded that the
factory has been operating for 25 years in the same location and that the client should not
have bought their house near a factory if they are a light sleeper. The factory owner has
also confirmed that their lorries are fitted with the best noise reduction mechanisms that are
available on the market.
Which of the following statements best explains whether the client may have a claim in
tort against the factory owner?
A Yes, because the client will be able to pursue a claim in public nuisance because the
lorries are using a public road.
B Yes, because the client will be able to pursue a claim in private nuisance because the
noise from the lorries is substantial and unreasonable.
C Yes, because the factory is a non- natural use of land in a rural location.
D No, because the factory was already operating before the client moved to the area.
E No, because the factory owner has taken reasonable care to ensure that the noise from
the lorries is kept to a minimum level.
Answer
Option B is correct. The noise from the lorries may be a substantial and unreasonable
interference with the claimant’s use of their land. The fact that the noise is at night and in a
rural location would indicate that the claimant would have a claim in private nuisance.
Option A is wrong because there is nothing to suggest that the noise from the lorries affects
a ‘class of Her Majesty’s subjects’, ie a sufficient number of members of the public. Public
nuisance is primarily concerned with protecting public rights and the fact that the lorries are
using a public road is only incidental to the interference with the client’s private right to be
able to use and enjoy their land.
Option C is wrong because a non- natural use of land is only one element of the rule in
Rylands v Fletcher. The other requirements are not satisfied on these facts as there has not
been an escape of anything likely to cause damage to the claimant’s land. In fact, it is unlikely
that this is a non- natural use of land in any event. A cement factory is not an extraordinary or
unusual use of land, even in a rural location.
Option D is wrong because ‘coming to the nuisance’ is an ineffective defence to a claim in
private nuisance.
Option E is wrong because private nuisance is not based upon proving that the defendant has
not taken reasonable care. Private nuisance is concerned with whether the consequences of
the defendant’s use of their land is unlawful in that it causes a substantial and unreasonable
interference with the claimant’s use of their land.
Question 2
A solicitor is instructed by the manufacturer of explosives used in the mining industry.
A relatively minor explosion at the client’s factory scattered debris over the trading estate
situated next door to their factory. Fortunately, no one was injured. However, the client has
been contacted by one potential claimant. They are the owner of one of the businesses
on the trading estate who are looking to claim for the cost of damage to the roof of their
warehouse.
An expert has investigated the cause of the explosion and they have advised that the client
was not to blame for the explosion.
Which of the following statements best explains whether the client may be liable in tort
for the damage to the warehouse roof?
A No, because the incident was an isolated event.
B No, because the explosion was not the client’s fault.
C Yes, because the warehouse owner has suffered particular harm over and above the
harm suffered by the public at large.
D Yes, because the client’s use of their land was non- natural and the debris caused
foreseeable damage.
E Yes, because property damage is always an unlawful interference with the use and
enjoyment of land.
a
Answer
Option D is the correct answer. The manufacture of explosives is likely to do mischief and it is
likely to be held to be a non- natural use of land. The debris from the explosives has ‘escaped’
and caused foreseeable harm to the warehouse owner. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is,
therefore, satisfied.
Option A is wrong because the torts of public nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
can be used by claimants where there have been ‘one- off’ or isolated events. It is correct,
however, that private nuisance does not usually cover isolated events.
Option B is wrong because none of the torts of private nuisance, public nuisance and the
rule in Rylands v Fletcher depend upon proving fault, ie that the defendant has not taken
reasonable care.
Option C is wrong because, while it seems that the warehouse owner is the only person to
have suffered harm, there is nothing to suggest that the public has been affected. A claim in
public nuisance is not, therefore, appropriate on these facts.
Option E is wrong because property damage is not always an unlawful interference with the
use and enjoyment of land. It is correct that an interference which causes physical damage
to the claimant’s land is likely to be considered excessive. However, this does not apply if the
damage is only trivial. In any event, private nuisance is not the appropriate tort for isolated
events.
