Nuisance

Question 1

Private nuisance: leading case

Answer 1

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Question 2

Private nuisance definition

Answer 2

Unlawful interference of a person’s use of or enjoyment over land.

Question 3

Private nuisance: 3 tests

Answer 3

Claimant must have a right to bring an action (proprietary interest over land)

There must be interference in the form of physical damage or loss of amenity

The interference must be sufficiently serious (5 factors)

Question 4

Right to bring action (case)

Answer 4

Hunter v Canary Wharf: Must have proprietary interest over the land

Question 5

Interference in the form of physical damage or loss of amenity

Answer 5

Physical damage: St Helen’s Smelting Co. v Tipping
Loss of amenity: Kennaway v Thompson (noise)

Question 6

Kennaway v Thompson

Answer 6

Loss of amenity (interference)

Question 7

St Helen’s Smelting Co. v Tipping

Answer 7

Physical damage (interference).
Also nullifies nature of locality factor.

Question 8

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 8

Claimant must have proprietary interest over the land

Question 9

5 factors of “sufficiently serious” interference

Answer 9

Nature of locality (nulled by physical damage)

Duration

Sensitivity

Malice

Social benefit

Question 10

Nature of locality

Sufficiently serious interference

Answer 10

Sturges v Bridgman

Question 11

Duration

Sufficiently serious interference

Answer 11

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

Question 12

Sensitivity

Sufficiently serious interference

Answer 12

Robinson v Kilvert (claim can be prevented if claimant is too sensitive)

Question 13

Malice

Sufficiently serious interference

Answer 13

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (a deliberate act is considered nuisance)

Question 14

Social benefit

Sufficiently serious interference

Answer 14

Miller v Jackson (A benefit to the community means no nuisance)

Question 15

Specific defences

Answer 15

Statutory Authority
Prescription
Moving to the nuisance

Question 16

Statutory authority

Defence to nuisance

Answer 16

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining

Question 17

Prescription

Defence to nuisance

Answer 17

Lawrence v Fen Tigers: If an activity has been carried out for more than 20 years it cannot be nuisance

Question 18

Moving to the nuisance

Defence to nuisance

Answer 18

Sturges v Bridgman

Question 19

Loss of amenity (interference)

Answer 19

Kennaway v Thompson

Question 20

Physical damage (interference).
Also nullifies nature of locality factor.

Answer 20

St Helen’s Smelting Co. v Tipping

Question 21

Claimant must have proprietary interest over the land

Answer 21

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Question 22

Sturges v Bridgman

Answer 22

Nature of locality

Sufficiently serious interference

and also the defence of moving to the nuisance

Question 23

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

Answer 23

Duration

Sufficiently serious interference

Question 24

Robinson v Kilvert

Answer 24

Sensitivity

Sufficiently serious interference

Question 25

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (a deliberate act is considered nuisance)

Answer 25

Malice

Sufficiently serious interference

Question 26

Miller v Jackson (A benefit to the community means no nuisance)

Answer 26

Social benefit

Sufficiently serious interference

Question 27

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining

Answer 27

Statutory authority

Defence to nuisance

Question 28

Lawrence v Fen Tigers: If an activity has been carried out for more than 20 years it cannot be nuisance

Answer 28

Prescription

Defence to nuisance

Question 29

Sturges v Bridgman

Answer 29

Moving to the nuisance

Defence to nuisance

Question 30

Physical damage case

Interference, nuisance

Answer 30

St. Helen’s Smithing Co. v Tipping

Question 31

Loss of amenity case

Interference, nuisance

Answer 31

Kennaway v Thompson