Nuisance Flashcards
What does nuisance set out to protect
The use and enjoyment of Land without interference
How many types of nuisances do we have
3
Public
Private
Statutory
Is public nuisance a crime
Public nuisance is a crime, and therefore dealt with through prosecution under the criminal law, but it also comes into the study of tort because there are some cases where parties who have suffered as a result of a public nuisance can sue in tort.
What is private nuisance the main subject of tort
The essence of liability for private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with another’s use or enjoyment of land and, in assessing what is reasonable, the courts will try to balance each party’s right to use the land as they wish.
What are the elements
● an indirect interference with the enjoyment of the land;
● that the interference was unreasonable; and
● that this interference caused damage to the claimant.
In addition, there are rules about the parties’ relationship to the land, which determine who can sue and who can be sued
What is public nuisance
Is one which material effects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of people who come within a sphere or neighbourhood of its operations
What is private nuisance
Consist of damage to the plaintiff arising from the reasonable enjoyment of Land e.g escaping water tree branch fumes flag pole etc
Is there a difference between public and private nuisance
Yes
Name the difference
Public nuisance is a crime where private nuisance is a tort under tort. Because public nuisance is a crime it is instituted by a suit of the AG. The same act can be both a public and private nuisance
Another difference between public and private
In private the claimant must have a interest in land but in public it is not necessary. Melone v Lasky 1907 the wife and the generator sha they had no interest in lad it was her husband boss that owed it
Hunter v Canary Wharf
The claimant wanted to claim damages for the distributing connection of their tv but it was held that there must be an interest to land
Another difference of public and private nuisance
In private nuisance a non occupier cannot bring an action for personal damages but in public nuisance a non occupier can bring an action for personal damages
Another difference between public and private
Public nuisance cannot be legitimised by prescription but public nuisance or the right to commit private nuisance can be legitimised by prescription
Sturges v Bridgman
The claimant, a doctor, moved house and on the premises, he bought and built a shed in his garden to carry out his private practice within. His shed was on the boundary of the property and happened to be next door to a confectioner. The confectioner had produced sweets in his kitchen for many years before the doctor had moved in. The doctor alleged that the noise of the confectioner grinding his pestle and mortar was clearly audible from his shed and that this disrupted his amenity in the form of his enjoyment of his land.
Issues
Whether the doctor could claim loss of amenity when he had ‘moved to the nuisance’ or not. Whether the character of the area or locality as a residential area meant that there was a nuisance.
Decision/Outcome
There was a nuisance, and the fact that the doctor had ‘moved to the nuisance’ was no defence to the nuisance itself. Nor was there an easement acquired by the confectioner through long usage that entitled him to continue with his actions. What constitutes a nuisance was to be decided on a case to case basis, and it is necessary to consider the particular locality itself. What is not a nuisance in one area may well be a nuisance in another and it would be unjust if the nuisance maker had been permitted to continue with the nuisance indefinitely and without power of law to interrupt if this was to be considered a right acquired by long usage.
Explain locality as an element in nuisance
Where the interference takes place will have an important bearing on whether it is reasonable; a land- owner in the centre of London cannot reasonably expect the same level of peace and quiet as one in the depths of the country. This point was made in St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping Ltd (1865). The claimant’s estate was situated in an industrial area, and, in deciding whether the fumes from the defendant’s copper works amounted to nuisance, the House of Lords distinguished between nui- sances causing actual injury to property, as in this case, and nuisances causing personal discomfort. In the latter case, claimants should be prepared to put up with the level of discomfort common to the area in which they are situated. However, claimants were not expected to put up with actual damage to their land resulting from the normal activities of the locality, and so an injunction was granted.
Legal principle
Whether interference with land is reasonable may depend on the locality, and what is a nuisance in a quiet residential area may not be a nuisance in an industrial location.
Abola v ijoma
The plaintiffs sued because of the defendants chicken we’re bringing bad smell which left the place smell. The high agreed and said it was a nuisance
Locality case
Where the interference takes place will have an important bearing on whether it is reasonable; a land- owner in the centre of London cannot reasonably expect the same level of peace and quiet as one in the depths of the country. This point was made in St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping Ltd (1865). The claimant’s estate was situated in an industrial area, and, in deciding whether the fumes from the defendant’s copper works amounted to nuisance, the House of Lords distinguished between nui- sances causing actual injury to property, as in this case, and nuisances causing personal discomfort. In the latter case, claimants should be prepared to put up with the level of discomfort common to the area in which they are situated. However, claimants were not expected to put up with actual damage to their land resulting from the normal activities of the locality, and so an injunction was granted.
Legal principle
Whether interference with land is reasonable may depend on the locality, and what is a nuisance in a quiet residential area may not be a nuisance in an industrial location.
Duration as a elements you need
How long the nuisance goes on for and when it happens will also affect whether it is considered unreasonable or not. Something noisy may be reasonable if it happens in the middle of the day, for example, but not late at night or early in the morning. In Halsey v Esso Petroleum (1961), the court found that the noise caused by filling petrol tankers was reasonable and so not a nuisance at 10am, but was a nuisance when it happened at 10pm
Miller v Jackson
LawTeacher logo
Order
View full disclaimer
Cases
Miller v Jackson - 1977
1491 words (6 pages) Case Summary
29th Sep 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team
Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law
Share this:
Law Case Summary
Miller v Jackson [1977] 1 QB 966
Introduction
The case of Miller v Jackson1 is a case on nuisance. The tort of nuisance provides that there will be a remedy where an indirect and unreasonable interference to land has occurred.2 Where a nuisance is found to have occurred the court may grant an injunction restricting the nuisance from occurring in the future. Alternatively, the court may determine that the appropriate remedy is an award of damages.
Prior to Miller v Jackson3 it had previously been held that there was no defence of ‘coming to the nuisance’.4 For example, in Sturges v Bridgman5 the defendant was a confectioner who had operated in the premises for more than 20 years. A doctor moved in next door and found that the noise and vibrations from the confectioner’s work interfered with his practice. The court upheld the doctor’s request for an injunction even though the doctor had known about the confectioner’s work. However, public policy may have a role to play. In Bolton v Stone6 the pursuit of cricket was held to have benefit to society which negated negligence where the damage only arose exceptionally.
In relation to the grant of an injunction, the prior case law indicated that damages would only be granted in lieu of injunction in exceptional circumstances.7 These circumstances were that the injury was small and capable of being estimated in money, the injury could be adequately compensated by a small money payment and the case is one in which it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction.8
Issues
The issues for the Court of Appeal in Miller v Jackson9 were whether the defendants were guilty of negligence and/or nuisance; whether there was a defence of ‘coming to the nuisance’; whether policy reasoning should impact the granting of an injunction.
Facts
The defendants had played cricket on a particular area of land for around 70 years. The neighbouring land was then sold for development and houses built on it. The plaintiffs bought one of the houses and then complained of negligence and nuisance from cricket balls landing on the property. The plaintiffs suffered damage to property and also complained that the activities of the cricketers prevented the enjoyment of their land and caused nervous damage. The first instance judge granted the injunction sought.
Outcome/Decision
By a majority, the Court of Appeal found that the cricket club was guilty of both negligence and nuisance (Lord Denning dissenting). However, in relation to the injunction the majority considered that no injunction should be awarded (Geoffrey Lane LJ dissenting).
Lord Denning took the view that cricket was an important public interest which ought to be balanced against the private interest of the plaintiffs. He stated that “The houses ought to have been so sited as not to interfere with the cricket”.10 Lord Denning considered that the plaintiffs were newcomers who had come to the nuisance and that this provided a defence to nuisance and stated that: “The building of the house does not convert the playing of cricket into a nuisance when it was not so before.”11 Furthermore, Lord Denning viewed cricket as a reasonable use of the land.
However, Geoffrey Lane LJ and Cumming-Bruce LJ considered the Court of Appeal to be bound by the decision in Sturges v Bridgman12 that it is no defence that the plaintiff came to the nuisance.
On the injunction point Geoffrey Lane LJ considered that the continuation of the nuisance could not be adequately remedied by damages. However, Lord Denning and Cumming-Bruce LJ took the view that public policy considerations outweighed the private rights of the plaintiffs and therefore a remedy of damages was sufficient in the circumstances. Lord Denning stressed that an injunction is a discretionary remedy and stated that: “I am of the opinion that the public interest should prevail over the private interest”.13
The final result was therefore that the defendant cricket club was able to continue playing cricket on the ground and only had to pay damages to the plaintiffs for any loss they incurred.14
Impact
Miller v Jackson15 confirmed that there is no defence that the plaintiff came to the negligence. However, the Court of Appeal appeared to depart from earlier case law on the injunction point, viewing an injunction as a discretionary remedy rather than a remedy for nuisance to be departed from only in exceptional circumstances. Public policy was not able to negate a finding of negligence or nuisance but it was able to militate against the grant of an injunction.16 The case therefore paved the way for a balancing of interests between the parties.17
Further cases have followed Miller v Jackson18 in finding that there will be no defence that the claimant came to the nuisance. For example, in Kennaway v Thompson19 the claimant was able to sue for an injunction after building her house next to a lake which was used by a water-skiing and motorboat club. More recently, in Coventry v Lawrence20 the Supreme Court restored an injunction originally granted at first instance after the claimants had moved in to a bungalow near to a speedway track on which motorbikes and stock cars had raced since 1975. As the majority had done in Miller v Jackson21 the court considered that the character of a neighbourhood could not be defined by the nuisance, and no defence existed merely because the nuisance had occurred prior to the claimant coming to it.22 However, the judgment of the court also followed Miller v Jackson23, not only on the injunction point, but also on applying a more relaxed approach to the granting of an injunction. Unlike cases prior to Miller v Jackson24 it was considered that the court does have an unfettered discretion to award damages in lieu of an injunction.25
Ultimately therefore, the case of Miller v Jackson26 did not change the law by providing a new defence to nuisance, as this was rejected by the majority.27 However, it did provide for more flexibility in the law when considering whether to grant an injunction and allowed public policy to play a greater role in this regard.
Footnotes
1 Miller v Jackson 1977 1 QB 966
2 K Horsey and E Rackley, Tort Law (2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2011) p 489
3 Miller v Jackson (n1)
4 Horsey and Rackley (n2) p 511
5 Sturges v Bridgman (1879) LR 11 Ch D 852
6 Bolton v Stone 1951 AC 850
7 S Deakin, A Johnston and B Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law (7th Edition, Oxford University Press, 2013) p 449; Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co 1895 1 Ch 287
8 Sturges v Bridgman (n5) at 322-333
9 Miller v Jackson (n1)
10 Miller v Jackson (n1) 976
11 Miller v Jackson (n1) 981
12 Sturges v Bridgman (n5)
13 Miller v Jackson (n1) 982
14 N J McBride and R Bagshaw, Tort Law (3rd Edition, Longman, 2008) p 84
15 Miller v Jackson (n1)
16 Deakin, Johnston and Markesinis (n7) p 448
17 A Samuels, “Developments that Cause a Nuisance: The Legal Significance of the Grant of Planning Permission” (2004) JPL 394, 396
18 Miller v Jackson (n1)
19 Kennaway v Thompson 1981 QB 88
20 Coventry v Lawrence 2014 UKSC 13
21 Miller v Jackson (n1)
22 D Howarth, “Noise and Nuisance” (2014) CLJ 247, 248
23 Miller v Jackson (n1)
24 Miller v Jackson (n1); see (n7)
25 K Horsey and E Rackley, Kidner’s Casebook on Torts (13th Edition, Oxford University Press, 2015) p 443
26 Miller v Jackson (n1)
27 J Segan, “Of Cricket Balls and Velux Windows – A Victory for Lord Denning and the Common Law Right to Hit a Good Six” (2014) Sports Law Bulletin, available at Click here
Share this:
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
OSCOLA
APA
MLA
MLA-7
Harvard
Vancouver
Wikipedia
Copy to Clipboard
Related Services
View all
Student working on a laptop
Law Essay Writing Service
From £124
Student reading book
Law Dissertation Writing Service
From £124
Student reading and using laptop to study
Law Assignment Writing Service
From £124
Related Content
Jurisdictions / Tags
Content relating to: “UK Law”
UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.
Related Articles
Legal Judicial System and Hospitality Management
Introduction Today, hospitality managers are required not only to understand the day to day operation of their operation but the legal aspect ……
Regulation of Insider Trading
The issue of insider tradingis as old as trading on equity markets itself….
Attitude and Approach of the Judiciary to a Claim for Economic Loss
In this essay, I am going to discuss pure economic loss negligence and the approach of the judiciary to a claim. “Many losses resulting from to……
Jurisdictions / Tags
UK Law
Related Services
Our academic writing and marking services can help you!
Law Essay Writing Service
Law Dissertation Writing Service
Law Assignment Writing Service
Marking Service
Samples of our Service
Full Service Portfolio
Zegal.com Logo
Simplify Your Contract Management
The Zegal online contract management platform allows your team to work seamlessly on all your legal contracts.
Learn More!
Study Resources
Free resources to assist you with your legal studies!
OSCOLA Referencing
SQE Study Guide
Legal Case Summaries
Act Summaries
Lecture Notes
Problem Question Examples
Law Study guides
UK Law Blog
Academic Knowledge Logo
Freelance Writing Jobs
Looking for a flexible role?
Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher?
Apply Today!
Cases
Place an Order Today!
LawTeacher on TrustedSite Place an Order
Part of Business Bliss Consultants FZE
LawTeacher on Trustedsite
Payment logos for bank transfer, Visa, Mastercard, Coninbase, WeChat and AliPay
SERVICES
Law Essay Writing Service
Law Dissertation Writing Service
Law Assignment Writing Service
All Law Services
USEFUL RESOURCES
Law Essays
Case Summaries
Act Summaries
Problem Questions
OSCOLA Referencing Tool
LLM Resources
Law Help
LLB Lectures
COMPANY
About
Info for UK Students
Fair Use Policy
Complaints
Help Centre
Become a Researcher
Copyright © 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE.
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookies
Sensitivity define
Traditionally, a defendant is not responsible for damage which occurs solely because the claimant, or the claimant’s situation, is abnormally sensitive. In Robinson v Kilvert (1889), the claimant occu- pied the ground floor of the defendant’s premises, using it to store brown paper. The defendant’s business, carried on in the basement of the same building, involved making paper boxes. This needed a hot, dry atmosphere. The heating used by the defendant in the cellar made the claimant’s floor hot too, which dried out the brown paper, reducing its value. The claimant sued in nuisance, but the court found that brown paper was exceptionally delicate. As the heat was not sufficient to dam- age paper generally and it had not inconvenienced the claimant’s workmen, the damage was due more to the sensitivity of the paper than to the defendant’s activities, so there was no nuisance
Malice
Spite or ill motive Malice here means a bad motive. Where a defendant acts with malice, that may be relevant to the question of reasonableness, in that it may make what would have been reasonable conduct unreasonable.
The case of Christie v Davey (1893) illustrates this point. The claimant was a music teacher, and held musical parties in his house. The defendant, his next door neighbour, deliberately tried to disturb both lessons and parties by blowing whistles, banging trays, shrieking and hammering on the wall. The court held that this malicious motive made the defendant’s conduct unreasonable
Elements of the tort
293
Chapter 13 Nuisance 294 and a nuisance. Had he not been trying to disturb the lessons, he might have had the right to make a noise, just as the claimant did with his lessons and parties. Another example is Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett (1936). The claimant bred foxes on his land. The defendant was a neighbour and, after a disagreement with the claimant, told his son to shoot his gun in the air while standing close to the claimant’s land in order to frighten the vixens so that they would not breed. The claimant’s action succeeded, for while the defendant was entitled to go shooting for the purposes of hunting game, his malicious motive rendered his activity an unreasonable interference with his neighbour’s enjoyment of his land.
Who can be sued
Occupiers
Trespassers
Owners
Third party
Volitile fit injuria
A person who has consented cannot complain
Defence to nuisance
Statutory authority if it’s resulted from an act which was authorised by statute
