Nuisance Flashcards
airspace trespass cases- can be committed accidentally
Laiqat v Majib [2005]; Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co [1957]- advertisement sign
airspace trespass is only possible how far up
Leigh [1978]- claim rejected for a light aircraft flying above his property- above the level of an ordinary user of land
actionable trespass below the ground- oilfield
Star Energy Ltd v Bocardo SA [2010]
what are the available defences for trespass?
necessity- public or private interest
legal justification- arrest
Permission- licence
defence of necessity successful- case; ship, oil, sea
Esso Petroleum v Southport Corporation [1956]
defence of necessity failed- crops; protesters
Monsanto Plc v Tilly [2000]
trespass ab initio principle
The Six Carpenters [1610]
trespass ab initio hard to suffice against police
Chic Fashions Ltd [1967]; Pasmore [1934]
Highlight the differences between nuisance and trespass of land
T- direct interference- actionable without proof of damage
N- indirect interference- actionable upon proof of damage to the interest in the land
3 things that may ne included in an action for private nuisance
-actual damage to land- physical
-interference with amenity interests
-encroachment
the opening case on nuisance- industrial revolution
St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping [1865]
who has legal standing to sue in nuisance?
a person holding a proprietary interest
latest authority for legal standing in order to sue in nuisance
Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]
loss of TV signal is not capable of creating the grounds for a claim in nuisance
Hunter 1997
children sue in nuisance- exception to proprietary interest requirement
McKenna [2002]
everyone must put up with some interference from their neighbours from time to time
Southwark LBC v Mills [2001]
physical damage is likely to succeed in nuisance- fireworks; boat;
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd [1996]
intensity of interference- floor to ceiling windows
Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023]
what would be nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey- the nature of locality
Sturges v Bridgeman [1879]
locality criteria is disproportionate between populations and promotes a class divide- noise; high density housing; low cost
Baxter v Camden LBC [2001]
planning permission changes the nature of locality- commercial port
Gillingham [1993]
planning permission was merely expansive and not a defence to nuisance- pigs’ farm
Wheeler [1996]
planning permission- an area of uncertainty- when does it act as a defence to nuisance claims? case with racing track in a rural area
Watson v Croft Promosport Ltd- racing track in rural area=nuisance, despite planning permission
what factors are sometimes considered, if relevant to the facts? clue: character of claimant/defendant
the sensitivity of the claimant; bad intentions of Defendant
sensitivity of claimant’s trade- injunction refused- brown paper
Robinson v Kilvert [1889]
If nuisance is actionable, damages awarded also cover the sensitivity of activity- clue: orchids
McKinnon Industries Ltd v Walker [1951]
nuisance also has an element of foreseeability as to the damage- guitars; railway signal
Network Rail v Morris [2004]- it was not reasonable to expect Network Rail to foresee the interference caused
defendant’s bad intentions usually allow for the claimant to succeed-
music teacher; annoyance; reversal
foxes; shooting
Christie v Davey [1893]
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett [1936]
malice from defendant not always taken into account- water supply; drainage
Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895]
statutory authority is a defence to nuisance
Manchester Corporation v Farnworth [1930]
total defence to nuisance claims given by statute is a high threshold- gulf oil case
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981]
nuisance claims which are protected by statute v HRA- noise from Heathrow Airport
Hatton v UK [2003]
20 years’ prescription is a defence to nuisance from when nuisance began
Sturges v Bridgman [1879]
cricket case- injunction awarded; than only damages based on public v private interests- subjective nature
Miller v Jackson [1977]
injunction awarded- pub landlord case
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1894]
a compromise between neighbouring users of land- partial injunction- boat racing case
Kennaway v Thompson [1981]
damages for personal discomfort- pig’s smell case
Bone v Seale [1975]
damages could be awarded for any property- clothes hung on washing line
Halsey v Esso Petroleum Ltd [1961]
HRA and sewage issues- is a fair balance being struck?
Marcic [2003]- claim disallowed
buy-out the right to continue the nuisance- MoD case- no injunction awarded
Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003]
what are the requirements for a successful claim under Rylands v Fletcher?
- D brings on his land for his own purposes, something likely to do mischief
-if it escapes
-which represents a non-ordinary use of land
-and causes foreseeable damage of the relevant type
Australian case expressly incorporated negligence into the Rylands v fletcher ‘tort’
Burnie Port [1994]
Further 2 cases strengthening the requirements of R v F
Cambridge Water [1994]; Transco
the requirement of foreseeability of risk led to overlaps with negligence. Which case mentioned this?
Cambridge Water
Who can sue under R v F? clue: nuisance requirement
Claimant has to have a proprietary interest in the land
non-natural use of land
Rickards v Lothian [1913]
Defences to action under R v F
Fault of C or consent- Ponting [1894]
escape caused by the unforeseeable act of a 3rd party- Lothian [1913]
act of God- Greenock [1917]
Statutory Authority- also applies
