Nuisance

Question 1

Define

Answer 1

Defined in common law as an indirect and unlawful interference with a person’s use of enjoyment of land, coming from neighbouring land

Question 2

Physical damage cases

Answer 2

Interference can be physical:
Tree roots (Davey v Harrow Corporation)
Flooding (Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan)

Question 3

Non-physical damage cases

Answer 3

Interference can be non-physical
Noise (Christie v Davey)
Smell (Wheeler v Saunders)
If it makes it physically unpleasant to be on the land (Halsey v Esso Petroleum)

Question 4

3 elements of nuisance

Answer 4

1. interference must be indirect
2. interference must be unlawful
3. C must be able to sue D

Question 5

Case for emotional distress

Answer 5

Emotional distress counts as interference (Thomas-Schwab v Costaki)

Question 6

The claimant is unable to sue if D simply affects a…

Answer 6

Recreational activity or ‘things of delight’

Question 7

Blocking a view case

Answer 7

Bland v Moseley

Blocking a view is not interfering with ‘use or enjoyment of land’ as it is a ‘thing of delight’

Question 8

Watching TV case

Answer 8

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd

Watching TV is not ‘use or enjoyment of land’ it is a recreational activity

Question 9

Continuing interference

Answer 9

If a natural hazard develops and D fails to take precaution to stop it and it interferes with other land
Leakey v National Trust

Question 10

Unlawful interference

Answer 10

To be unlawful means to be ‘unreasonable’
Southwark London Borough Council v Mills
Unreasonable means use that goes beyond acceptable behaviour

Question 11

5 factors to consider when deciding if behaviour is ‘unreasonable’

Answer 11

1. sensitivity of C/reasonably foreseeable damage
2. locality
3. duration
4. malice
5. social benefit

Question 12

Sensitivity of C/reasonably foreseeable damage

Answer 12

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Morris

Court should consider if it was reasonably foreseeable that this damage would be caused when deciding if unreasonable

Question 13

Locality

Answer 13

Sturges v Bridgman
What’s reasonable for an area depends on it’s character and makeup

St Helen’s Smelting co v Tipping ltd
Physical damage won’t be expected in any locality

Question 14

Duration

Answer 14

Halsey v Esso Petroleum
What is reasonable at one time of day is not reasonable at another

Crown River cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Firewords ltd
Temporary interference can be unreasonable if severe enough

Question 15

Malice

Answer 15

Christie v Davey

Using land with bad intention will be unreasonable

Question 16

Social benefit

Answer 16

Miller v Jackson

Reasonable use should consider how that use benefits the community at large

Question 17

C is able to sue D

Answer 17

Occupier of the park can be sued for either creating a nuisance or adopting a nuisance caused by a previous owner or tresspasser

Question 18

Who can be sued?

Answer 18

Tetley v Chitty

• creator of nuisance
• person who occupies land creating nuisance
• owner of land creating nuisance

Question 19

Who can sue?

Answer 19

Hunter v Canary Wharf

• C must have proprietary interest/legal rights in the land affected
• tenants and owners can sue
• not visitors, trespassers, young people, employees

Question 20

Defences

Answer 20

1. prescription
2. planning permission

Volenti can apply

Question 21

Prescription

Answer 21

Sturges v Bridgman

If his act has been a nuisance to C for 20 years, D is prescribed a right to continue activity

Question 22

Planning permission

Answer 22

Wheeler v Saunders

• planning permission isn’t an automatic defence
• gives D a chance to change locality
• if use is still unreasonable for the area then actions can still be a nuisance

Question 23

Remedies (only if specified in question)

Answer 23

Injunction - order for D to do something and if they don’t follow it there can be legal consequences
Abatement- C legal permission to solve issue themselves