nuisance Flashcards
private nuisance
an indirect unreasonable interference with the claimant’s use or enjoyment of their land
direct interferences are dealt with by the law of trespass to land
proof of damage is necessary
claimant must show that damage has been suffered and that the interference was unlawful
damage:
- either physical damage to land ( flooding) or
loss of amenity (smells or noise)
- encroachment ( tree roots)
unlawful interference with use or enjoyment of land
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940) - overflow of water onto the land of another
Leaky v national trust (1980)- landslip
Bone v Seal(1975) - emanation of smell
Davey v Harrow Corporation(1958)- damage caused by roots of tree
tetley v chitty (1986)- noise from go cart track
Law v Florinplace (1981)- a sex shop in a residential street
unreasonableness of the interference- factors locality
locality
something which may not be a nuisance in one area may be in a diff area
Sturges v Bridgman (1879)
- noises and vibration from machines interfered with consulting room
held: the claim for nuisance succeeded
St. Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping (1865)- fumes from smelting damaged crops and flowers
D argued that almost the whole area was manufacturing
held: nuisance as D was liable for the damage caused by their activities even if own land.
intensity-timing, duration,frequency
sensitivity
bad intention of the D
Social utility of D’s activity
locality and planning permission
the character of a locality can be changed by decisions on planning permission
Gillingham Borough Council v medway doc co(1993)
- planning permission was granted for a dockyard to be commercial for 24 hours
- g asked there to be injunction 7pm to am
held: the permission changed the locality and the claim was dismissed
Wheeler v JJ saunders (1996)
- permission to build two pig houses
held: planning permission did not change nature of locality and the smell made JJ liable
Watson v Croft Promo Sport ltd (2009)
- cps operated racing circuit had permission
held: the nuisance claim succeeded did not change locality character
Coventry v Lawrence (2014)
speedway racing
- noise
held: the claim for nuisance succeeded- mere grant of permission was normally of no assistance to the defendant in a nuisance claim
intensity-timing, duration,frequency
halsey v Esso petroluem (1961)
- filling of oil at 10 am was reasonable but at 10pm it amounted to nuisance
intensity
Fearn v Board of trustees of the tate gallery (2023)
- private nuisance claim relating to viewing platform of tate modern top floor enabled to see into flats
held: succeeded- the visual intrusion on C property was of sufficient duration and intensity to be nuisance
duration
British Celanese v Hunt(1969)
D was electrical component manufacturer, foil strips blew into a power station causing it to stop.
held:D was told of the likelihood of powercut , nuisance claim succeed
sensitivity
Robinson v Kilvert(1889)
- let the ground floor
- needed heat and air and k know
- damaged brown paper but not normal paper
held: k not liable
Mckinnon Industries v Walker (1951)
- damage from noxious fumes from M factory was to delicate orchids
held: the nuisance claim succeeded because ordinary plants be damaged too
Network Rail v Morris (2004),
- Japanese knotweed
held: saw special sensitivity as outdated
only if homeowners could prove their house as specially suscpetibe
Bad intention of the defendant
Christie v Davey (1893)
- c was a music teacher, D knocked on walls and beat trays when music lessons went on as his own disturbance
held: the music was not a disturbance but D’s disturbance was- he acted only to annoy
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)
- adjoined with silver fox farm
- discharged guns on his own land to scare foxes and to stop them from breeding
held: this was nuisance and injunction granted
social utility of the D’s conduct
Miller v Jackson (1977)
- damages awarded instead of an injunction as a remedy
SUING
who can sue
only those who have a
legal interest in the land affected
can sue, article 8 ECHR incompatible
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
- interference with tv reception- loss of amenity from dust and alleged health problems.
- nuisance is a tort to land and not to person
- right to sue depends on proprietary rights
who can be sued?
the creator of the nuisance even when they are no longer occupying the land where the nuisance is
- the occupier of the land
- the landlord where there is a granted lease for the nuisance
tetley v chitty(1986)- grated to go cart club
DEFENCE
CN
VNFI
- Statutory authority- if under a statute defendant must use their land this way
- prescription- if the defendant’s activity has been causing nuisance for 20 years or more- it is not enough to show that the activity has been carried on for 20 years or more sturges v bridgman (1879)
- coming to the nuisance is not a defence miller v jackson (1977)
remedies
injunction- the primary remedies
the primary remedy court order to stop or limit the nuisance
damages - sometimes awarded by the court instead of as awell as an injunction- reasonable foreseeability test (wagonmound (no1) (1961)) applies
damages are awarded
a) if the value of the land has decreased as in Dennis ministry of defence
b) loss of amenity- diminished enjoyment of the land Bone v Seal (!975)
- damages are not awarded for personal injury
abatement (self help)
- used in encroachment cases- may be permissible as long as the person does no more than necessary to abate the nuisance
