nuisance Flashcards
what case defines nuisance
(Fearn v Tate Gallery 2023
whats a direct nuisance
direct action that causes harm e.g letting animals onto neighbouring land
whats a indirect nuisance
consequence of someone elses behaviour e.g smell, noises or smoke
what are the 4 requirements of nuisance
1.Claimant has an “interest in land’’
2.The Defendant is the person allowing the nuisance. (D is the owner or tenant)
3.There is an unlawful interference with the Claimant’s use and enjoyment of their property
4.The use of land by the Defendant is unreasonable
Claimant has an “interest in land’’ case
Hunter v Canary Wharf 1997
what does this state
Must have an “interest” in the land – meaning a legal interest.
They can be owners or tenants, but cannot be children, family or friends.
does ‘defendant is the person allowing the nuisance’ include naturally occurring nuisance
yuh (u got dis queenie pie pops)
what other thing does this include
“adopted” the nuisance by being aware of it and not doing anything to stop it
Defendant is the person allowing the Nuisance case (think tea)
Tetley v Chitty 1986
naturally occurring nuisance case
Leakey v National Trust 1980
“adopted” the nuisance case (like sledge)
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan 1940
does unlawful Interference with the Claimant’s Use and Enjoyment of Property mean illegal activities
na g
just that it is unreasonable in the way that it affects the claimant
in a scenario you need to identify specifically what’s causing the nuisance!
this is usually smth indirect
what case tells us it can also include physical damage to C’s property
(think like g eazy cheated on)
Halsey v Esso
what did Fearn v Tate Gallery 2023 say
Said no limit to what can constitute a nuisance - as long as it is substantial (big enough)
what does it include
Fumes and factory noise/smell (Halsey v Esso)
Smells
Noise
Vibrations from a factory
what does this not include
Right to a view of the countryside
Right to light
Right to TV reception (Hunter v Canary Wharf 1997)
what is Unreasonable Use of the Land by the Defendant about
This is about balancing the interests of both parties
what case asks 2 questions (not a new case dawgy)
1) Is the interference for C substantial?
It is an objective test – would the reasonable person see this as a substantial interference?
- Is D is using their land in a common and ordinary way?
If so, D will not be liable, no matter how substantial the interference is
what 4 factors will courts look at to see if its unreasonable
Locality (is it urban/rural/residential /industrial?)
-Duration (continuous)
-Sensitivity of the Claimant (damage is not foreseeable to the Defendant)
-Malice (deliberately harmful=unreasonable)
Locality case (think where trolls live)
Sturges v Bridgman 1879
duration case
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks 1996
sensitivity of c case (think caparo test)
Robinson v Kilvert 1889
malice case (think where they go in nativity)
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett 1936
what are the 4 defences
consent
Prescription (0ccurring for 20 years or more without complaint)
Statutory Authority (There is an Act of Parliament which requires the defendant to do whatever action is causing the nuisance)
Acts of a Stranger (If the nuisance is not caused by the Defendant directly this will usually be a full defense)
prescription case (think shaun lailas friend)
Coventry v Lawrence
Statutory Authority case (think law teacher)
Allen v Gulf Oil
Acts of a Stranger case
Sedleigh Denfield
what are the defenses that are not available (2)
Claimant Came to the Nuisance- If a claimant moves into an area voluntarily then finds a Defendant’s actions a nuisance, the Defendant cannot claim that they are not liable because the Claimant moved there voluntarily
Usefulness of the Defendant’s Activity OR that D took Care and Skill - If the Defendant’s activity serves a useful social purpose – or they are doing the activity with all care and skill – this is still not a defense
Claimant Came to the Nuisance- what case is this seen in (u got this gng)
Miller v Jackson
Usefulness of the Defendant’s Activity OR that D took Care and Skill case (same one gng)
Miller v Jackson
darg i aint done remedies soz
