Nuisance Flashcards
What are the 4 main elements to prove for nuisance?
-Who can sue and be sued
-Indirect interference
-Factors of unreasonableness
-Defences and remedies
What are the 3 different types of nuisance?
-Private
-Public (don’t need to know for exams)
-Statutory (don’t need to know for exams)
What is the definition of private nuisance?
-An unlawful indirect interferences with a person’s use or enjoyment of land coming from the neighbouring land
*must be indirect not direct as that would be trespass to land
*doesnt normally cover one offs
What were the 3 elements established by Lord Lloyd in Hunter v Canary Wharf
- Encroachment
- Physical injury to land
- Interference with enjoyment of land (ordinary existence)
Competing interests/what is a nuisance classed as?
-Not all disputes can end up in court
-people want to do what they like on their land, but problems if affects neighbours ability to enjoy theirs
-need to balance interests
-interference which is reasonable is likely to be considered unlawful
Parties to an action - claimant
-Claimants need a proprietary (legal) interest in the land to make a claim
-eg owner of land but also occupier who has lease or tenancy.
-not a licensee who is permitted to use the land
-members of family can’t bring claim
Case for members of family can’t bring a claim
-Malone v Laskey
-Injured when vibrations from engine on property caused bracket to come loose and cistern to fall on toilet
-not successful as didn’t have prop interest, husband was licensee
In what case was this confirmed?
-Hunter v Canary Wharf
-C’s lived in London when Canary Wharf was built, building affected TV reception. Loss of this kind of recreational facility not sufficient for nuisance as other forms of reception like satellite and cable
-confirmed that only those with interest can bring action
Case where tv signal was further discussed?
-Bridlington Relay co
-TV signal purely recreational but may become important part of ordinary enjoyment
-decided to stick that it was purely recreational
Parties to an action - dft
Person/org who is causing or allowing the nuisance on the land owned or occupied by them
-eg land owner, occupier, person creating the nuisance
Case for dfts
-Southport Corporation v essay petroleum co ltd
-D’s oil tanker stuck in estuary due to weather and heavy load. Discharged 400 tonnes of oil to free it, oil drifted onto C’s land and marine lane which had to close until clear. Claimed in negligence and nuisance
-liable in both
Case for even tho the occupier has not created the nuisance he still might be liable in law for authorising it
-Tetley v Chitty
-Council allowed go-kart club to use their land for a track. Nearby residents brought claim.
-council liable for authorising activities
-noise ordinary and neccessary incident to go karting, purpose which they granted
Where an occupier did not create a nuisance but adopted it he may still be liable case
-Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan
-D’s land in ditch, trespasser (council) laid pipe with ill placed grating to keep out leaves
-In heavy storm leaves blocked pipe and caused flooding on C’s land
-occupiers who knows of danger and allows it to continue is liable even if not created the danger himself
Cases (2) for occupier may be liable if nuisance due to natural cause but they did nothing about it
-Leakey v National Trust
-D’s owned land, large natural mound on hillside
-aware it could slip
-after hot summer it did and damaged C’s cottage
-liable as knew it may happen
-Anthony and others v the coal authority
-D took over responsibility for former colliery. Landscaped and sold as common land
-fire through spontaneous combustion, lasted 3 yrs, fumes and smoke.
-liable as aware of problem while tip still in D’s control
What are the 7 things that will amount to a direct interference and case names?
-Loud noise - Hollywood silver fox farm v emmett
-Noise and vibrations from industrial machinery - sturges v Bridgman
-fumes drifting over neighbouring land - bliss and hall
-hot air rising into a neighbours premises - Robinson v Kilvert
-Smuts from fuel depots chimneys - Halsey v esp petroleum
-continuous interference from cricket balls - miller and Jackson
-adult shop in residential area - laws v florinplace
-running a brothel in a respectable area - Thompson -Schwab costaki
What activities are held outside protection?
-TV reception (also excludes view but not light) - hunter v Canary Wharf
What amounts to an unreasonable use of land?
-interference which is unreasonable is unlawful
-court asks “in all the circumstances, is it reasonable for the C to have to suffer the particular interference?”
-look at factors to balance interests and decide if unreasonable
What are the 5 factors which the court will consider when deciding if use of land is unreasonable?
- Locality
- Duration of interference
- Sensitivity of the C
- Malice
- Social benefit
What is the case and the key quote from it for locality?
-Sturges v Bridgman
“What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”
-C doctor and lived and worked next to D’s sweet factory. C built additional consulting room in garden on boundary. Complained nuisance in rooms due to vibrations from machine. D argued prescriptive right as using factory for 20yrs.
-court held defence prescription failed as nuisance only began when the rooms built
When will the locality factor not apply?
-physical damage was caused rather than mere interference with comfort
- Explain duration of interference/ degree of interference
-interference should be continuous at unreasonable times of day
-if one-off noisy party then unlikely but if regular then yes
-but event lasting 15-20 mins can be nuisance
Cases (2)for duration of interference
-Crown River cruises ltd v Kimbolton fireworks
-river barge set on fire by flammable debris from firework display lasting 20 mins
-display amounted to nuisance
-Spicer v Smee
-fire in D’s property bc of faulty wiring, fire spread to neighbouring property. Faulty wiring continuous state of affairs which was nuisance
- Explain sensitivity of the claimant
-C wont succeed if using property for extra sensitive purposes, definition says use of land in reasonable way
What are the 3 cases for sensitivity of the claimant
Robinson v Kilvert
-C stored brown paper on ground floor
-D stored paper boxes in basement. Needed it to be hot and dry
-Heat caused paper to dry out and C sued for loss in value
-particularly delicate and wouldn’t have dried out normal paper
McKinnon industries v Walker
- D manufactured steel and iron, 600ft from C. Dwelling house and commercial florists and nursery. Grew orchids known for sensitivity.
-Noxious fumes and smuts caused shrub trees hedges to die . Entitled to recover for orchids.
Network rail infrastructure v Morris
-C ran recording studio near London to Brighton line. Installed new track circuits, interfered with electric guitars.
-Guitars sensitive, interference not foreseeable
- Describe malice
-Is dft trying to annoy c?
-Deliberately harmful act seen as unreasonable, nuisance
Two cases for malice
-Hollywood silver fox farm v emmett: C bred mink. Disagreement with C and D told son to shoot guns near property to frighten so didn’t breed. Deliberate - nuisance
-Christie v Davey: C music teacher, held parties and lessons at house. D annoyed by noise and banged on walls, blowed whistles and shouting. Injunction against him for deliberate and malicious behaviour
- Explain social benefit
-Where the dt is providing a benefit to the community, more willing to find activity reasonable
2 cases for social benefit
-Miller and Jackson: cricket balls always flying into neighbours garden. Tried to compromise by higher fences and batsmen batting on ground. Community use of the ground (sport) outweighed private use
-Adam’s v Ursell: fish and chip shop, smells coming from it. Forced to close. Unlikely similar decision today as would make positive order to fit extractors
What are the 3 defences to an action in private nuisance?
- Prescription
- Statutory authority
- Planning permission
Explain Prescription
-defence where if the D has carried on activities for at least 20 years and there has been no complaint made in that time. Must be the same parties
-have prescriptive right to continue
Case for prescription
-Sturges v Bridgman
-doctor and sweet factory
Explain statutory authority
-Public body allowed to cause nuisance if acting in accordance with legislation
2 cases for statutory authority as a defence
-Allen v Gulf oil refining: D permission to build oil refinery by statue but not operate it. Residents complained abt smell and noise, statute covered the operation
-Marcie v Thames Water plc (dft will escape liability if parliament has created an alternative remedy) c’s property flooded w sewage often, drains by Thames water not adequate due to pop increase. Drains were properly maintained, claim should’ve been under legislation. P already catered as gas and water more important
Explain planning permission
-Can sometimes in circumstances act as lawful justification for the nuisance
-granted by LA’s after careful investigations into rights and expectations of those in community. Protection to D’s
What are three cases for planning permission? Names
-Gillingham Borough council v Medway (Chatham) dock co
-Wheeler v Saunders
-Coventry v Lawrence
Gillingham Borough council v Medway
-Former naval dockyard now runs as commercial port
-HGV’s using residential roads at night, disturbs
-must judge the area as it is now after the planning permission has been granted. Not actionable nuisance, grant changing character of neighbourhood
*must be a change in the character of the neighbourhood
Wheeler v Saunders
-Smell from pigs, planning permission did not alter the character of the neighbourhood, this could be a nuisance
Coventry v Lawrence
-C bought house in 2006, 864m from D’s motor sport stadium. Planning granted in 1975 for speedway use and other motor sports
-C brought action of nuisance requiring injunction
-SC confirmed existence of a noise nuisance and granted injunction limiting use
3 points from the SC decision in Coventry v Lawrence
-Rules in sturges v Bridgman abt considering character of neighbourhood still applies, if C still uses property for same purposes as predecessor the dft can’t use defence of coming to nuisance
-Where C builds on property or changes use after D has started the activity complained of, defence of coming to nuisance fail
-Damages considered as a remedy more often, esp where D has planning permission to use land. Court also prefer to award when public interest is involved.
What are the two remedies for nuisance?
-Injunction
-Abatement
Injunctions
-Until cov v Lawrenc, usual remedy
-always positive eg install sound proofing
-could be linked to damages under shelfer test
What did the shelfer test set out?
Damages only awarded over injunction when:
-injury to C’s rights was small
-C can be compensated by money
-a small pay is adequate
-unfair on the dft to grant an injunction
What guidance did Coventry v Lawrence give on damages and injunctions? (4)
-Injunction could be the default order in a nuisance claim
-open to the dft to argue that an award of damages would be suitable alt
-shelfer test shouldn’t be applied rigidly
-injunction not auto granted even if shelfer test satisfied
-now more likely damages will be awarded
What is abatement?
-entering D’s premises to prevent further nuisance
-eg C enter D’s land to chop down overhanging branches, these would need to be returned
-can only cut down own side
-mustn’t cause unnecessary damage
-if serious risk then action can be taken without notice
-must give notice they’re entering property
