NSNCE

Question 1

What is the definition of private nuisance according to Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort?

Answer 1

“Unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.”

Question 2

What are the three main elements required to establish a private nuisance?

Answer 2

Interest in Land: The claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land affected by the nuisance (e.g., owner, tenant).
Unreasonable Interference: The defendant’s use of land must interfere unreasonably with the claimant’s use or enjoyment of their land.
Harm Caused: The interference must cause actual harm to the claimant, such as physical damage to property or significant discomfort.

Question 3

Who qualifies as a claimant in a private nuisance case? (2cases)

Answer 3

Individuals with an interest in the land, such as property owners or tenants.
Malone v Laskey (1907): A mere licensee without an interest in the land cannot sue for nuisance.
Pemberton v Southwark LBC (2000): Her continued occupation with the implicit consent of the authority, ‘the peculiar status of a ‘tolerated trespasser’’, was sufficient to make her an occupier able to claim in nuisance.

Question 4

Who can be sued in a private nuisance case?

Answer 4

Creator of the Nuisance: The person who created the nuisance, even if they no longer occupy the land (e.g., Thompson v Gibson (1841)).
Occupier of the Land: The current occupier can be liable for nuisances emanating from their land, even if they did not create it. They may be liable if they exercise control over the creator or continue the nuisance (e.g., Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)).
Landlord: Under specific conditions, such as authorizing the nuisance, knowing about it before letting, or having a duty to repair (e.g., Tetley v Chitty (1986))

Question 5

What are the common defenses against a nuisance claim?

Answer 5

Statutory Authority: If the nuisance is authorized by a statute, it provides a complete defense (e.g., Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd (1981)).
Act of a Stranger: If a third party caused the nuisance without the defendant’s knowledge or negligence (e.g., Wringe v Cohen (1940)).
Contributory Negligence: If the claimant’s own negligence contributed to the nuisance.
Prescription: For private nuisance, if the defendant has been using the land in the same way for over 20 years without complaint (e.g., Sturges v Bridgman (1879))

Question 6

What are the key differences between public and private nuisance?

Answer 6

Nature: Public nuisance is both a crime and a tort, while private nuisance is only a tort.
Affected Parties: Public nuisance affects a group of people or the public at large, whereas private nuisance affects specific individuals.
Frequency: Public nuisance can be a one-time event; private nuisance usually involves ongoing interference.
Interference with Land: Public nuisance does not require interference with land, while private nuisance does.
Prescription: Prescription is not a defense for public nuisance but can be for private nuisance.

Question 7

What factors are considered to determine if an interference is ‘reasonable’ in a private nuisance claim? (LDIMT)

Answer 7

Nature of the Locality: What might be a nuisance in one area may not be in another (e.g., Sturges v Bridgman (1879)).
Duration and Frequency: Short-term, infrequent interferences are less likely to be considered unreasonable (e.g., Barr v Biffa Waste Services (2013)).
Time of Occurrence: Activities causing interference at unreasonable times (e.g., late at night) are more likely to be deemed unreasonable (e.g., Polsue & Alfieri Ltd v Rushmer (1907)).
Intensity: The severity of the interference plays a role (e.g., Kennaway v Thompson (1981)).
Malice: Interference motivated by malice is more likely to be unreasonable (e.g., Christie v Davey (1893))

Question 8

What remedies are available for nuisance?

Answer 8

Injunctions: Orders to stop or limit the nuisance (e.g., Kennaway v Thompson (1981)).
Damages: Compensation for harm caused by the nuisance, including property damage and loss of amenity (e.g., Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)).
Abatement: Self-help remedy allowing the claimant to take reasonable steps to stop the nuisance, such as removing overhanging branches (e.g., Lemmon v Webb (1894))

Question 9

What is the rule established in Rylands v Fletcher (1868)?

Answer 9

A form of strict liability where the defendant is liable for damages caused by the escape of something likely to do mischief that they brought onto their land for a non-natural use.
Requirements: Bringing something onto the land, non-natural use, likely to do mischief, escape, and foreseeability of harm.
Case Example: Rylands v Fletcher involved water from a reservoir flooding adjacent mines.

Question 10

Describe the case Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) and its significance.

Answer 10

Chemicals used in leather tanning seeped into the groundwater, contaminating the claimant’s water supply.
The House of Lords ruled the damage was too remote and not foreseeable, emphasizing that foreseeability of damage is necessary for liability under Rylands v Fletcher and nuisance.
This case established that remoteness of damage applies to both nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher.

Question 11

What is public nuisance and what are its key characteristics?

Answer 11

Public nuisance is an act or omission materially affecting the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects.
It does not require an interest in land to sue, and it can be brought by public authorities or individuals with special damage.
Examples include obstruction of highways, pollution, and noise from public events (e.g., Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957))

Question 12

Who can sue for public nuisance?

Answer 12

Attorney General: Can sue on behalf of the public.
Private Individuals: Must show they suffered special damage beyond that suffered by the general public (e.g., Tate & Lyle Industries v GLC (1983))

Question 13

What is the significance of Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957) in public nuisance law?

Answer 13

Defined public nuisance as an act or omission materially affecting the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects.
Established that the nuisance must affect a substantial number of people, not necessarily all of them.

Question 14

Explain the decision in Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) and its implications for private nuisance.

Answer 14

The court ruled that interference with television reception caused by the construction of Canary Wharf Tower did not constitute a private nuisance.
Clarified that claimants must have a property interest to sue in private nuisance, and purely aesthetic interferences are generally non-actionable.

Question 15

What is the defense of statutory authority in nuisance claims?

Answer 15

A complete defense if the nuisance is specifically authorized by statute.
Case Example: Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd (1981), where the operation of an oil refinery was authorized by a private Act of Parliament

Question 16

Describe the principle established in Goldman v Hargrave (1967) regarding natural occurrences.

Answer 16

Landowners have a duty to take reasonable care to prevent natural hazards on their property from causing harm to others.
In this case, the defendant was liable for failing to adequately extinguish a fire caused by a lightning strike, leading to damage to a neighboring property.

Question 17

What does ‘substantial and unreasonable’ interference mean in private nuisance?

Answer 17

The interference must significantly affect the use or enjoyment of the claimant’s land, going beyond trivial annoyances.
Assessed by considering factors like the nature of the locality, duration, intensity, and reasonableness of the interference (e.g., Barr v Biffa Waste Services (2013)).

Question 18

What constitutes an ‘unreasonable user’ in private nuisance claims?

Answer 18

The test is whether an ordinary neighbour should reasonably be expected to tolerate the defendant’s use of the land.
Factors include:
The nature of the locality: E.g., industrial activities in a residential area might be unreasonable (Sturges v Bridgman (1879)).
The duration and frequency of the interference: Short, infrequent interferences are less likely to be unreasonable (Barr v Biffa Waste Services (2013)).
The time of day: Interferences at unreasonable times (e.g., night) are more likely to be unreasonable (Polsue & Alfieri Ltd v Rushmer (1907)).
The intensity of the interference: Severe interferences are more likely to be unreasonable (Kennaway v Thompson (1981)).
Malice: Interferences motivated by malice are more likely to be unreasonable (Christie v Davey (1893))

Question 19

How does planning permission affect nuisance claims?

Answer 19

Planning permission can indicate that the character of the locality is changing, but it does not automatically make a nuisance reasonable.
Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham Docks) (1993): The High Court held in favour of the defendant. The grant of planning permission had changed the character of the neighbourhood to a more commercial one. The defendant’s use was not unreasonable.
Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd (2014): Planning permission does not override private nuisance claims; the defendant’s activities must still not constitute a nuisance.

Question 20

What are the remedies available for public nuisance?

Answer 20

Injunctions: To stop or limit the nuisance.
Damages: Compensation for harm, including personal injury and property damage.
Abatement: The claimant can take steps to stop the nuisance themselves, often after giving notice to the defendant.

Question 21

What is the significance of the case St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping (1865)?

Answer 21

Facts:
The claimant owned a manor surrounded by a large estate of trees and plants.
Nearby was an industrial district. The defendant engaged in copper smelting in a factory within that district.
Fumes from the factory caused damage to the claimant’s trees and plants.
The claimant sued the defendant in private nuisance for the damage.

Issue:
Was the defendant’s copper smelting reasonable use?

Decision:
The House of Lords held in favour of the claimant. The character of the neighbourhood was irrelevant in this case: it is always unreasonable to use land in a way which damages another person’s property.

Question 22

What is the principle of ‘coming to the nuisance’?

Answer 22

The defense that the claimant moved to the location where the nuisance exists is generally not valid.
Miller v Jackson (1977): The court held that the claimant’s knowledge of the nuisance before moving in does not prevent them from claiming.

Question 23

How does the principle of ‘malicious interference’ affect nuisance claims?

Answer 23

Interferences motivated by malice are more likely to be deemed unreasonable.
Christie v Davey (1893): The defendant was found liable for creating a nuisance out of malice by banging on walls and creating noise to disrupt a neighbor’s music lessons.

Question 24

Explain the concept of ‘prescription’ as a defense in private nuisance.

Answer 24

Prescription is a defense if the defendant has been using the land in the same way for over 20 years without any complaints.
The nuisance must have been actionable for the entire period.
Sturges v Bridgman (1879): The defense of prescription was not applicable because the nuisance only became actionable when the claimant started using their land in a way that was affected by the defendant’s activities.

Question 25

What is the significance of Kennaway v Thompson (1981) in nuisance law?

Answer 25

The case involved noise from powerboat racing on a lake.
The court issued a partial injunction to limit the racing hours, balancing the rights of the claimant to quiet enjoyment and the defendant’s interests.
Emphasized that courts can tailor remedies to balance competing interests.

Question 26

What does ‘adopting and continuing the nuisance’ mean?

Answer 26

A defendant may be liable if they adopt a nuisance by making use of it for their purposes or continue a nuisance by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it.
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940): The defendant was liable for adopting and continuing a nuisance created by a trespasser (a drainpipe placed on their land)

Question 27

Explain the case Goldman v Hargrave (1967) and its relevance.

Answer 27

The Privy Council held that landowners have a duty to take reasonable care to prevent natural hazards on their property from causing harm to others.
The defendant was liable for failing to adequately extinguish a fire caused by a lightning strike, leading to damage to a neighboring property.

Question 28

What are the factors indicating that interference is unreasonable in private nuisance claims?

Answer 28

Repetition: A repeated event or ongoing state of affairs (e.g., Spicer v Smee (1946)).
Duration: Long-term interference is more likely to be unreasonable.
Time: Interference at unreasonable times, such as late at night (e.g., Polsue & Alfieri Ltd v Rushmer (1907)).
Intensity: Intense interference is more likely to be unreasonable.
Malice: Interference motivated by malice (e.g., Christie v Davey (1893))

Question 29

What does the case Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery (2023) signify about privacy and nuisance?

Answer 29

The UK Supreme Court ruled that intrusive viewing from the Tate Modern’s viewing platform did not amount to a legal nuisance, as it did not fit within the traditional forms of nuisance like noise or smell.
Highlighted the distinction between privacy issues and traditional nuisance claims.

Question 30

Describe the role of foreseeability in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher claims.

Answer 30

For a claim to succeed, the harm must be foreseeable.
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994): Established that foreseeability of damage is required for liability under both nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher.

Question 31

What are the remedies available for private nuisance?

Answer 31

Injunctions: Primary remedy to stop the nuisance; can be full or partial (e.g., Kennaway v Thompson (1981)).
Damages: Compensation for harm caused, including property damage and loss of amenity (e.g., Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)).
Abatement: Self-help remedy where the claimant can take reasonable steps to stop the nuisance, such as cutting overhanging branches (e.g., Lemmon v Webb (1894))

Question 32

Explain the significance of Colour Quest v Total Downstream (2009) in public nuisance.

Answer 32

The High Court found Total Downstream liable for an explosion at the Buncefield oil depot, causing extensive damage.
Established that claimants do not need a property interest in the affected land to sue for public nuisance.

Question 33

What is the rule established in Robinson v Kilvert (1889) regarding sensitive activities?

Answer 33

The defendant is not liable for nuisance if the interference only affects the claimant because of a special sensitivity of the claimant’s activity.
The nuisance must interfere with the ordinary use of the land, not just a special or sensitive use.

Question 34

How did the case McKinnon Industries v Walker (1951) expand on the principle in Robinson v Kilvert?

Answer 34

The court found McKinnon Industries liable for fumes damaging the claimant’s orchids.
Established that if the interference would be considered unreasonable by an ordinary user, it does not matter that the claimant’s use was sensitive.

Question 35

What constitutes ‘materially affecting the reasonable comfort and convenience of life’ in public nuisance?

Answer 35

Any act or omission that significantly impacts the community’s comfort and convenience.
Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957): Defined public nuisance and established the criteria for determining its impact.

Question 36

Explain the case Tate & Lyle Industries v GLC (1983) and its relevance to public nuisance.

Answer 36

The court held that the Greater London Council was liable for obstructing access to Tate & Lyle’s wharf by constructing ferry terminals that caused silt buildup.
Established that public authorities could be liable for public nuisance if their actions obstruct public rights or cause significant harm.

Question 37

Structure for Tackling a Problem Question on Nuisance

Answer 37

1. Identify the Parties and Their Interests

Determine who the claimants and defendants are.
Establish the interest in the land (claimants) and control over the land (defendants).
2. Identify the Type of Nuisance

Determine whether the issue is a private nuisance, public nuisance, or Rylands v Fletcher.
3. Determine the Relevant Legal Principles and Tests

For Private Nuisance:
Interest in Land: Confirm that the claimant has a proprietary interest.
Unreasonable Interference: Use factors like duration, frequency, intensity, nature of locality, and malice.
Harm Caused: Identify the type of harm (physical damage, loss of amenity).
For Public Nuisance:
Materially Affecting the Public: Assess if the nuisance affects a class of Her Majesty’s subjects.
Special Damage: Determine if the claimant suffered special damage beyond the public.
For Rylands v Fletcher:
Bringing onto Land: Identify if something was brought onto the land.
Non-Natural Use: Assess if the use of land was non-natural.
Likelihood of Mischief: Determine if the substance is likely to do mischief.
Escape: Establish if the substance escaped and caused damage.
Foreseeability: Confirm if the harm was foreseeable.
4. Apply the Law to the Facts

Match the facts of the scenario to the legal principles.
Use relevant case law to support your arguments (e.g., Sturges v Bridgman, Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc).
5. Consider Possible Defenses

Analyze any defenses raised by the defendant (e.g., statutory authority, act of a stranger, prescription).
6. Conclude with Likely Outcomes and Remedies

Summarize the likely success of the claim based on your analysis.
Suggest appropriate remedies (injunctions, damages, abatement)

Question 38

Compensation? “Nuisance Law: Corrective Justice and Its Utilitarian Constraints” by Richard A. Epstein

Answer 38

Corrective Justice:
Focuses on fair compensation for violations of individual rights.
Important aspects:
Plaintiff’s protected interest (ownership or use of land).
Defendant’s interference with that interest.
Establishing liability (responsibility) and defenses.

Question 39

How does Epstein explain the plaintiff’s right and the defendant’s invasion in nuisance law? “Nuisance Law: Corrective Justice and Its Utilitarian Constraints” by Richard A. Epstein

Answer 39

Plaintiff’s Right:
Must have a clear interest in the property.
Example: In Union Oil v. Oppen, fishermen’s right to sue depended on proving ownership or special interest in the affected fish.
Defendant’s Invasion:
Nuisance involves significant interference with the use/enjoyment of land.
Examples: Fumes, noise, odors, and other disturbances that don’t involve physical trespassing but still cause harm.

Question 40

What does Epstein say about the act requirement and causation in nuisance claims? “Nuisance Law: Corrective Justice and Its Utilitarian Constraints” by Richard A. Epstein

Answer 40

Act Requirement:
Defendant must have actively created or maintained the nuisance.
Naturally occurring nuisances (like a swamp’s odor) usually don’t lead to liability unless facilitated by the defendant.
Example: Giles v. Walker - Spreading thistles after clearing land can be liable.
Causation:
Direct link between defendant’s actions and the harm.
Cumulative harm from repeated actions (e.g., continuous pollution) can establish liability.
Example: Asbestosis cases, where ongoing exposure leads to illness.