NSNCE Flashcards
(40 cards)
What is the definition of private nuisance according to Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort?
“Unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.”
What are the three main elements required to establish a private nuisance?
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.
Who qualifies as a claimant in a private nuisance case? (2cases)
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.
Who can be sued in a private nuisance case?
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))
What are the common defenses against a nuisance claim?
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))
What are the key differences between public and private nuisance?
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.
What factors are considered to determine if an interference is ‘reasonable’ in a private nuisance claim? (LDIMT)
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))
What remedies are available for nuisance?
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))
What is the rule established in Rylands v Fletcher (1868)?
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.
Describe the case Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) and its significance.
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.
What is public nuisance and what are its key characteristics?
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))
Who can sue for public nuisance?
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))
What is the significance of Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957) in public nuisance law?
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.
Explain the decision in Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) and its implications for private nuisance.
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.
What is the defense of statutory authority in nuisance claims?
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
Describe the principle established in Goldman v Hargrave (1967) regarding natural occurrences.
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.
What does ‘substantial and unreasonable’ interference mean in private nuisance?
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)).
What constitutes an ‘unreasonable user’ in private nuisance claims?
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))
How does planning permission affect nuisance claims?
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.
What are the remedies available for public nuisance?
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.
What is the significance of the case St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping (1865)?
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.
What is the principle of ‘coming to the nuisance’?
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.
How does the principle of ‘malicious interference’ affect nuisance claims?
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.
Explain the concept of ‘prescription’ as a defense in private nuisance.
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.
