Nuisance Flashcards
(20 cards)
Nuisance definition
An unlawful indirect interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land.
Three types of nuisance
Encroachment (eg tree roots)
Physical injury to a neighbours land
Interference with a neighbour’s enjoyment their own land
Identify who the claimant can be
Someone with a proprietary interest in the land
Cases:
Malone v Laskey (established)- cistern fell on woman. Was merely a tenant so no interest (shouldv’e been a negligent claim anyway).
Hunter v Canary Wharf (confirmed)- disrupted tv signals, HoL ruled that the loss of a recreational activity wasn’t an interference. Only claimants with an interest in the land could claim, not family members.
Who can the defendant be?
The creator of the nuisance
The occupier of the land
The owner of the land
Creator of the nuisance
Esso Petroleum v Southport Corporation
D released oil from a tanker into an estuary. The oil drifted onto the claimant’s land causing physical damage. D liable as the nuisance affected the enjoyment of the claimant’s land
The owner of the land (who didn’t create but authorised the nuisance)
Tetley v Chitty
Council allowed go kart club to use their land as a race track. Nearby residents bought action. D (council) liable as they knew there would be noise when they authorised.
The occupier of the land (who adopted the nuisance)
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan
Order monks occupied land where a pipe had been laid. There was an issue with the pipe which caused flooding. The D’s (monks) knew about the pipe. They were liable as they allowed the nuisance to continue even though they weren’t the ones who caused it.
The occupier where the nuisance is a result of natural causes but has done nothing about it
Leakey v National Trust
Clmt’s land damaged by falls of soil & other debris from D’s land. Following a dry summer and heavy rainfall in autumn, clmt noticed a crack on the land above house. Informed NT and offered to pay half the cost but they refused. A larger fall occurred weeks later and she joined forces with other neighbours to bring an action in nuisance against NT. The claim was successful.
What will amount to an indirect interference?
-Lound noises (Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett)
-Noise/vibrationa from industrial equipment (Sturges v Bridgman)
-Fumes drifting over neighbouring land (Bliss v Hall- fumes from candle factory)
-Continuous interference from cricket balls (Miller v Jackson)
Interference must be unlawful (unreasonable)
“Whether D’s activity is foreseeabily likely to cause a nuisance”
Balancing act between one’s right to use their land and other’s enjoyment of their own land.
Test: Does the nuisance interfere with ordinary existence?
The court will consider:
-Locality
-Duration
-Degree of interference
-Sensitivity of claimant ‘
-Reasons for D’s activity
-Motives (malice)
Locality
Sturges v Bridgman
“what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square wouldn’t necessarily be so in Bermondsey”
Clmt was a doctor who built a consulting room on the boundry of his garden next to sweet factory which caused vibrations in the new room. Court decided D’s defence of prescrpition (having existed there for 20+ years) failed as the nuisance only began when the consulting room was built.
Duration of interference
Claim only likely to be successful if interference is continuous and at unreasonable times of the day. However, this didn’t apply to the following case but this is likely because it caused damage rather than merely interfering with enjoyment.
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks-
A river barge was set alight by flammable debris from 20 min firework display.
Sensitivity of claimant
Clmt won’t succeed if using property for extra sensitive purposes.
Robinson v Kilvert- clmt stored brown paper on ground floor while D stored paper boxes in the basement. D needed hot and dry conditions. The heat caused brown paper to dry out and clmt sued for the loss in value. No nuisance as the brown paper was particularly delicate and the heat wouldn’t have dried out normal paper.
Law appears to be moving away from ‘sensitivity’ and towards a general test of foreseeability.
Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris- Clmt ran recording studio next to railway. New track circuits installed beside railway interferring with the amplification of electric guitars, causing clmt to loose business. CoA decided that the use of amplified guitars was abnormally sensitive and the nuisance wasn’t foreseeable.
Malice
A deliberately harmful act will normally be unreasonable behaviour and considered a nuisance.
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett- Clmt bred mink, D had disagreement with C and told son to shoot guns near C’s property to frighten the animals so they wouldn’t breed.
Social benefit
Where D is providing a benefit to the community, the court may be more willing to find the activity reasonable.
Miller v Jackson- C’s use of their garden disrupted by cricket balls from the adjoining recreation ground. Benefit of sports ground to community outweighed C’s private use.
Defences
-Prescription
-Statutory authority
-Planning permission
Prescription
Defence if the action of D has been carried out for at least 20 years without a complaint. It must be between the same parties for this period. Sturges v Bridgman.
Statutory Authority
A public body is allowed to cause a nuisance if acting in accordance with legislation.
Marcic v Thames Water- C’s home flooded with sewage on many occasions due to failures of D. The Water Industry Act 1991 excluded an action of nusiance agaisnt D so no action could be taken.
Planning Permission
Planning permission can act as lawful justification for the nuisance in some cases. Must change the character of the neighbourhood in order to succeed as a defence.
Wheeler v Saunders- Pig farmer was granted planning permission to expand farm by two more pig houses. One of the new houses was only 11 meters from a neighbour’s cottage, who took a nuisance action because of the strong smells he experienced. The character of the neighbourhood hadn’t changed therefore the defence failed.
Remedies
Injunctions
(Kennaway v Thompson- Injunction limiting the use of the lake as water sports caused noise and disturbance)
Damages
Abatement (reduction or removal of a nuisance)
