Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

LAW UNIT 2 > NUISANCE > Flashcards

NUISANCE Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

DEFINTION

A
  • an indirect unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over, in connection with it
  • interference must be indirect
  • direct interference would fall under trespass to land
  • unlawful refers to unreasonable in this context
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

OCCUPIER

A
  • independent contractors
  • trespassers
  • an act of nature
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

A
  • occupier will be liable for the work done by an independent contractor if there is a real danger of a nuisance occurring and they have not taken reasonable measures to prevent it
  • MATANIA v NATIONAL PROVINCIAL BANK
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

TRESPASSERS

A
  • occupier will be liable for nuisances created by trespassers if the adopt the nuisance or allow the nuisance to continue
  • SEDLEIGH- DENFIELD v O’CALLAGHAN
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

ACT OF NATURE/GOD

A
  • occupier will be liable if they were aware, or ought to have been aware of a potential nuisance that could be caused by and act of nature/god
  • GOLDMAN v HARGRAVE
  • LEAKEY v NATIONAL TRUST
  • HOLBECK HALL HOTEL LTD v SCARBOROUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

LANDLORDS

A
  • can sometimes be liable for activity which creates a nuisance on their land
  • applicable where the landlords permits the nuisance
  • TETLEY v CHITTY
  • PAGE MOTORS LTD v EPSOM + EWELL BOROUGH COUNCIL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

3 MAIN ELEMENTS TO PROVE

A
  • an unlawful, sense of unreasonable, use of land
  • which causes indirect interference
  • with another’s land
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

UNLAWFUL USE OF THE LAND

A
  • if the use of a person’s land unreasonably interferes with the use of another’s land it will be regarded as being unlawful for the purposes of private nuisance
  • if the activity complained of it classed as a result of ‘everyday life’ then it will not be classed as unlawful
  • SOUTHWARK LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v MILLS AND OTHERS
  • consider the next 4 factors = locality, duration, malice and sensitivity of the claimant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

LOCALITY

A
  • what is classed as being reasonable will depend on the locality of the potential nuisance
  • STURGES v BRIDGMAN
  • where an actual physical damage is caused as a result of this activity, the issue of locality is not relevant, ST HELENS SMELTING CO v TIPPING
  • where the interference is with a person’s comfort, peace or personal freedom, locality is important
  • LAWS v FLORINPLACE LTD
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

DURATION

A
  • for an activity to amount to a nuisance it must be continuous
  • ANDREAE v SELFRIDGE = this requirement may be satisfied by an activity which recurs regularly
  • DE KEYSERS ROYAL HOTEL LTD v SPICER BROS LTD
  • a ‘one off’ or isolated incident can also amount to a nuisance
  • SPICER v SMEE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

MALICE

A
  • the D’s motive, if it can be characterised as ill-will or spite, may well result in the court regarding what would otherwise be a reasonable activity as unreasonable and therefore a nuisance
  • CHRISTIE v DAVEY
  • HOLLYWOOD SILVER FOX FARM v EMMETT
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

SENSITIVITY OF THE CLAIMANT

A
  • nuisance only operates to protect the claimant’s reasonable use of their land
  • where the use to which the claimant puts the land is unusually sensitive to the things such as heat or fumes D is not liable
  • ROBINSON v KILVERT
  • if ordinary uses of the land are also interfered with, there will be a remedy available for the interference of sensitive use
  • MCKINNON INDUSTRIES v WALKER
  • law will look at a general test of foreseeability when determining whether a claim for sensitive interference would be permissible
  • NETWORK RAIL v MORRIS
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

SOCIAL BENEFIT

A
  • if the courts consider that the D is providing a social benefit to the community, court may consider the actions reasonable
  • MILLER v JACKSON
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

INDIRECT INTERFERENCE

A
  • fumes drifting over neighbouring land = BLISS v HALL
  • vibrations from industrial machinery = STURGES v BRIDGMAN
  • loud noises - HOLLYWOOD SILVER FOX FARM v EMMETT
  • fire = SPICER v SMEE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND

A
  • claimant must prove that the act of the D has caused an indirect interference with the use and enjoyment of the land
  • where physical damage has occurred, it is easy to prove
  • non-physical damage, court will ask what effect this interference has on the claimant
  • interference must be substantial
  • BRIDLINGTON RELAY LTD v YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY BOARD
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

PRESCRIPTION

A
  • when a D relies upon the defence of prescription they are claiming that they have acquired the right to commit the nuisance
  • to rely on this defence, the activity complained of must have been carried on for a period of 20 years
  • throughout that time, the activity must have been causing an actionable as a private nuisance, but nobody has in fact taken action
  • does not matter how long an activity has been carried on for unless, for the last 20 years at least, someone has been in occupation of nearby land and would have been able to establish a nuisance affecting land
  • STURGES v BRIDGEMAN
17
Q

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

A
  • an act of parliament can allow a defence to nuisance
  • if the act authorises the activity which creates the nuisance
  • CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1982 = allows aircraft to fly over land
  • many activities that can amount to a nuisance are now regulated or licensed by environmental or other laws
  • many activities that can amount to a nuisance are now regulated or licensed by environmental or other laws
  • SA is a clear defence in these situations
  • if the act provides the only remedy available, claimant cannot bring an action in private nuisance, MARCIC v THAMES WATER PLC
  • ALLEN v GULF OIL REFINING
18
Q

PLANNING PERMISSION

A
  • planning permission granted by local authorities can negate a nuisance
  • GILLINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL v MEDWAY DOCK CO LTD
19
Q

COMING TO THE NUISANCE

A
  • moving to a nuisance is not a defence
  • BLISS v HALL
  • it would be unreasonable to suspect someone not to purchase land because a neighbour was abusing their rights by making an unreasonable use of their land and
  • people would dictate to what use they put their land and how unreasonable it would be. they would be unilaterally deciding to what use the neighbouring land could be put
  • COVENTRY v LAWRENCE
20
Q

SOCIAL UTILITY AND PUBLIC BENEFIT

A
  • D cannot argue that their activity is of social utility and therefore cannot amount to a nuisance
  • ADAMS v URSELL
  • if the courts consider that the d’s activity is providing a public benefit they may consider the actions of the d as reasonable
  • still not a defence. MILLER v JACKSON

LAW UNIT 2 (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions