Nuisance Flashcards
definition
A private nuisance is an Unlawful (unreasonable) interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land” the interference must be unreasonable to be actionable
stage 1: the claimant must be established
claimant must demonstrate that they have an appropriate legal interest in the land affected (HUNTER v CANARY WHARF)
stage 1: establishing the defendant
D is the creator of the nuisance- “the fact that the D has taken all reasonable care not to be a nuisance will not exonerate him” (LORD GOFF in CAMBRIDGE WATER)
local authority SR: Jones LTD v Portsmouth City Council
stage 2: reasonableness factors
four key factors to decide whether the interference is considered unreasonable (only explain and apply relevant ones)
stage 2: Location
Locality of the interference must be considered, has the character of the neighbourhood changed?-(LEEMAN v MONTAGUE)
(Is it residential or industrial, commercial or rural)
stage 2: Location side rule
Damage to c’s land: (St Helen’s smelting v Tipping) if the nuisance causes physical damage to c’s land then the issue of location is irrelevant
stage 2: Duration
The more long lasting the interference, the more likely it is to be a nuisance, private nuisances are interferences for a substantial length of time (Cunard v Antifyre)
stage 2: Duration side rule: Time of day
Even if interference is short in duration, it could still be unreasonable because of the time of day (De Keyser’s Royal Hotel)
stage 2: Duration side rule: continuous
if it is continuous but doesn’t last long can still be deemed unreasonable (Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton)
stage 2: Motive and malice of the D
If the activity of the D is motivated my malice it is likely to be unreasonable (Christie v Davey)
stage 2: Motive and malice side rule
Claims where the interference is with a recreational activity will fail (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
stage 2: sensitivity of the D
if claimant is abnormally sensitive or the use of land is sensitive D will only be liable if the activity would amount to a nuisance to a reasonable person using the land in a normal manner (ROBINSON v KILVERT)
Defence: statutory authority
Where an act of parliament gives permission for the nuisance (Allen v Gluf Oil)
Defence: planning permission
(Gillingham Council v Medway) PP could mean that the character of the neighbourhood has changed and the interference is now reasonable/unreasonable
Defence: prescription
If claimant tolerates nuisance for substantial amount of time (20 years) without complaint, no nuisance
Defence: Volenti-non-fit-injuria
When the C expressly or impliedly consents to the nuisance, no claim
Defence: contributory negligence
Law reform (contributory negligence) act 1945: C’s compensation is reduced according to their own responsibility for the damage/nuisance
defence: moving to the nuisance
MILLER v JACKSON will not be a successful defence
Remedy: damages (compensation)
May be awarded when damage done by nuisance is quantifiable. Damages for past loss and inconvenience may also be awarded
Remedy: injunctions
Force the D to act or stop the D doing something. Are an equitable remedy. Can refuse injunctions if not in public interest and award damages instead ( Miller v Jackson ). Can be tailored to meet exact circumstances (Kennaway v Thompson)
Remedy: Abatement
Self-help, c is entitled to take reasonable steps to lessen the nuisance (LEMMON v WEBB)
