Nuisance Flashcards
what is private nuisance?
private nuisance covers people who live in close proximity to each other usually the dispute regards things the claimant doesnt want on their land.
when do private nuisance cases go to court?
when the claimants’ enjoyment of the land is affected, and the defendants use of their land is unreasonable.
unreasonable use definition
this means the interference with the claimants land is sufficient to prompt legal action, it isnt about the conduct of the defendant. (not ALL intentional interference with neighbouring land will satisfy the tort of nuisance, only those that are deemed unreasonable.
private nuisance legal definition
‘an unlawful indirect interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land’
two types of nuisance
loss of amenity nuisance eg. caused by noise, smell or smoke.
material damage nuisance (dangerous state of affairs on D’s land causes significant physical damage to C’s land eg. tree roots and subsidence)
which is easier to claim for?
material damage is easier to claim for eg. noise affects your enjoyment
which parties can claim?
anyone who uses or enjoys the land
is affected by the interference
and has an interest in the land (a legal interest eg. owner or tenant)
Tetley v Chitty (defendants= ppl causing interference)
facts: local authority allowed go-kart racing on it’s land
held:
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan
facts: a drain cover installed by a contractor caused flooding on a neighboring property.
held: the contractor was liable for the damage as they created a dangerous situation and failed to rectify it.
principle: Contractors are liable for damage caused by their faulty installations.
Leakey v National Trust
facts: a visitor slipped on a wet rock while walking on a path owned by the National Trust.
held: the National Trust was not liable as they had taken reasonable steps to warn visitors of the slippery conditions.
principle: Property owners aren’t always liable for accidents if they’ve taken reasonable steps to warn visitors of potential hazards.
Anthony v The Coal Authority
facts: The Coal Authority, subsidence caused damage to the claimant’s property due to coal mining activities.
held: the Coal Authority was liable for the damage caused by the subsidence.
unlawful requirement
unlawful- interference alone isnt enough, D’s actions must amount tot unlawful use of the land. unlawful doesnt mean illegal, but actually use of the land that unreasonably affects the claimant.
indirect interference requirement
loss of amenity eg. fumes drifting over, smell from farm animals, noise from children’s playground, noise from gunfire, noise from speedway and racing circuit.
material damage eg. vibrations from machinery, hot air, oil soot from chimney, fire, cricket balls being hit into garden.
what does indirect interference not include?
a right to a view of the surrounding countryside, or the right to light.
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (tv reception interference)
Thompson-Shwab v Costaki
held: CoA decided that the running of a brothel in a residential area amounted to nuisance
unreasonable requirement
unreasonable- courts must balance the interests of parties; to help them decide if conduct is unreasonable they consider:
locality
duration
sensitivity of claimant
malice
social benefit
locality explanation
the character of the area or neighbourhood is considered eg. if its purely residential, residential and commercial, or industrial, if its town or country.
duration explanation
to be actionable the interference is likely to be continuous and/or during the unreasonable hours of the day.
(a noisy one off party might not be held to be a nuisance but regular noisy late night parties might be)
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd
facts: a river barge was set alight by debris from a 20 minute fireshow
held: Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd held liable for damage to boat due to fireworks negligence.
principle: Negligence leading to damage makes the responsible party liable for the harm caused.
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros
facts: temporary building work was to be carried out at night
held: Tenant entitled to compensation for losses during requisitioning, even without frustration of contract.
sensitivity of the claimant explanation
if the claimant is particularly sensitive then there may not be a claim for nuisance.
Robinson v Kilvert
facts: motorcycle accident
held: Kilvert liable for negligence.
principle: importance of exercising reasonable care and caution while operating vehicles to prevent harm to others.
Network Rail v Morris
facts: C ran a recording studio near a main railway line, D installed new circuits that interfered with the amps at the recording studio
held: CofA considered that the amps were abnormally sensitive and the interference was not foreseeable so D was not liable.
malice explanation
if behaviour is deliberately harmful it will usually be held to be unreasonable and therefore a nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
facts: Emmett breached a contract with Hollywood Silver Fox Farm by delivering lower-quality silver foxes.
held: Emmet liable for breach of contract
principle: parties must honor their contractual agreements, or they may be liable for breach and have to pay damages.
Christie v Davey
facts: a student was denied a Promise Scholarship as he pursued a theology degree. He argued it violated his right to freely exercise his religion.
held: the denial didn’t constitute religious discrimination.
principle: a state can deny scholarship funds to students studying theology without violating their religious rights.
social benefit explanation
if the actions of the defendant are considered to be beneficial to society or the community the courts may find that this is not unreasonable behaviour
Miller v Jackson
facts: C’s propertywasbeinghitbycricket balls from D’s property a cricket ground. They tried to solve the situation by building a tall fence but C wanted D to stop using the land as a cricket ground.
held: the benefit of sport to the community outweighed the interests of C especially as the fence mitigated the original nuisance
how is the decision decided in nuisance?
courts will consider all factors when making a decision, they consider the strength of each argument. there isn’t one factor that is more important than others it is a case by case basis.
defences in nuisance
Prescription
Moving to the nuisance
Statutory authority
prescription defence
if a nuisance actions has been occurring for more than 20 years and there has been no complaint between these parties in that time, D may be said to have a prescriptive right to continue.
Sturges v Bridgman
facts: a doctor complained about noise from a neighboring confectioner’s workshop.
held: the doctor couldn’t claim because the confectioner’s operation was already established and the doctor had “come to the nuisance”.
principle: Those who “come to the nuisance” can’t later complain about it.
moving closer to the nuisance
D might try to claim that C moved closer to the nuisance (as in Sturges v Bridgman and Miller v Jackson) but this does not provide a defence
Statutory authority defence
many nuisance issues are now covered by environmental laws, if D has statutory permission to use their land in that way, they may be able to use this defence.
fault
the claimants don’t have to show why the defendant acted this way but there is still an element of fault eg. in malice.
