nuisance Flashcards
- Public Nuisance:
Public nuisance happens when an act or failure to act interferes with the rights of the public or a group of people, causing inconvenience or annoyance to them.
If it affects someone’s personal property (like their land or property rights), it’s a private nuisance.
If it affects public rights (like using roads or air), it’s a public nuisance.
What counts as public nuisance?:
Anything that harms the public’s comfort or convenience can be a public nuisance.
For example,:
Blocking a public road.
Selling dangerous or bad food.
Creating unsafe conditions in public spaces.
case example
Tate & Lyle Industries v GLC [1983]:
Tate & Lyle operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Thames. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken be larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get to through the shallow waters. As part of development Tate & Lyle wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time the GLC was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that that it caused siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Tate & Lyles’ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of £540,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Tate & Lyle brought an action in negligence and nuisance to recover the cost of te extra dredging.
Held:
The claim in negligence and private nuisance failed since they did not possess any private rights which enabled them to insist on any particular depth of water. The claim succeeded in public nuisance since the interference caused by the ferry terminals affected public navigation rights. Tate & Lyle suffered particular damage as a result of this interference.
Who can sue?:
The Attorney-General (on behalf of the public) typically brings a public nuisance case.
Private individuals can sue if they can show they suffered special harm, like injury or financial loss, more than the general public.
- Private Nuisance:
Private nuisance protects you from situations where your right to peacefully enjoy your property is disturbed.
Obstructions in public spaces:
If something blocks a public road or path, it can be a public nuisance.
Example: In Cunningham v McGrath Bros (1964), a builder left a ladder on the footpath, which caused someone to get injured when it fell.
Obstructions can be a public nuisance, especially if they hurt someone.
Dangers on public roads:
If something dangerous on a public road causes injury (like a chemical spill), it might be a public nuisance. But unless someone can show they were specifically harmed (special damage), it might not be enough to sue.
Special Damage:
In cases of public nuisance, a person who experiences more significant harm than the general public (like injury or financial loss) can sue. For example, if someone blocks a road and you miss an important meeting because of it, that could count as special damage.
What counts as private nuisance?:
Encroachment:
When something from your neighbor’s property (like tree roots or branches) affects your land, it can be a nuisance.
Example: If tree roots damage your house’s foundations, you can ask for the tree to be removed or seek compensation (like in McCombe v Read, 1955).
Pl brought an action for an injunction because def’s poplar trees encroached on his property, which caused damage to his property by undermining his house’s foundations. Both damages and an injunction (to remove trees) granted.
Physical Damage:
If something physically harms your land (like debris, water, etc.), this can also be a nuisance.
But these cases are mostly handled now through trespass or negligence instead of private nuisance.
Substantial Interference with Enjoyment of Property:
If something makes it hard for you to use or enjoy your property (e.g., loud noises, smoke), it can be a private nuisance.
Example: If a neighbor plays loud music all night and it makes it impossible for you to sleep, that’s a private nuisance.
- Encroachment on Another’s Land (Branches):
What is it?
If a tree branch from one property hangs over another property and causes damage, the property owner can be held responsible, just like with tree roots that damage property.
Key Case:
Lemmon v. Webb (1894): If a tree branch encroaches and causes damage, the affected property owner can seek the same remedies (damages or removal) as if it were roots damaging the property.
When is the owner not liable?
Gillen v. Fair (1956): If a branch falls due to a hidden defect (something that couldn’t have been detected by an ordinary inspection), the owner might not be responsible for the damage.
Different rules in different areas:
In urban areas, the law expects property owners to take more care with overhanging branches than in rural areas. Urban areas have more traffic and people, so there’s a higher risk of accidents.
Key Case:
Lynch v. Dawson (1946): A tree branch caused an injury when it got tangled in a lorry. The landowner was held responsible because they should have known about the danger, especially since modern vehicles are bigger than those in the past.
Substantial Interference with the Enjoyment of Land (Amenity):
What is it?
Private nuisance can happen when something interferes with your enjoyment of your property—like noise, smells, or anything that makes it hard for you to live there comfortably.
Key Points:
The court looks at reasonableness: What would a reasonable person expect in terms of comfort and enjoyment?
The interference must be substantial—not just a minor inconvenience.
Example:
Hanrahan v Merck Sharpe & Dohme (1988): Fumes from a factory caused personal discomfort (burning eyes, difficulty going outside). The court said that this kind of interference is a substantial nuisance because it seriously affected the plaintiff’s comfort.
What counts as substantial?
The nuisance must be something that materially affects the person’s enjoyment of their property. Trivial issues like minor noise or occasional smells don’t count.
Key Case:
Cunard v Antifyre (1933): For a nuisance to be successful in court, the interference must be material, not just something small like a tiny noise or smell. So, one-off events are less likely to be considered nuisance.
Noise and Soundproofing:
Key Case:
Southwark v Mills & Tanner (2001): Noise from neighbors (like loud TVs or crying babies) wasn’t considered a nuisance, even though it disturbed the tenants. The court said that normal noise from living in an apartment (like cooking, talking, or walking) is expected and doesn’t count as a nuisance.
The law tries to balance the rights of neighbors.
For example, it might be okay to have a washing machine, but it would be unreasonable to put it against a shared wall so that the noise bothers your neighbor too much.
Rule:
Things that are necessary for everyday living, like using a TV or cooking, typically won’t be considered nuisance, even if they cause some disturbance.
But things that go beyond normal use (like using a roof as a terrace when it wasn’t meant to be used that way) could be a nuisance.
Character of the Neighbourhood:
What is it?
The type of neighborhood affects whether something is considered a nuisance. What is normal in one area (like a busy street) might not be acceptable in a quieter, residential area.
Key Case:
O’Kane v. Campbell (1985): A shop in a busy area caused noise, disturbing nearby residents. The court had to decide whether the noise was acceptable in that area. The shop had to stop its business at night, but the judgment depended on the mix of residential and busy streets.
Zoning and Transitioning Areas:
If an area is residential, activities like loud businesses or industries may be considered a nuisance. If the area is transitional (e.g., changing from residential to commercial), it’s more complex.
Malice and Intentional Interference:
What is it?
If a neighbor intentionally causes harm just to annoy you (malicious behavior), that’s not acceptable and can lead to liability for nuisance.
Key Case:
Christie v. Davey (1893): A defendant intentionally made noise to annoy the plaintiff, who was giving music lessons. The court ruled that the defendant’s actions were malicious and granted an injunction to stop the noise.
Key Case:
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936): The defendant caused harm by making noise near the plaintiff’s fox farm, trying to ruin their business out of spite. The court ruled that this intentional, malicious interference was unlawful.
Social Utility of the Activity:
What is it?
When determining if something is a nuisance, the court considers if the activity causing the nuisance has a social or economic benefit.
Example: If the activity helps the public (e.g., a drug treatment clinic), it might be harder to stop, even if it causes harm to nearby businesses.
Key Case:
Clifford v Drug Treatment Centre Board (1997): The court ruled that while the drug clinic was causing nuisance to local businesses, it was important to balance public interest (helping drug addicts) with private rights. An injunction limiting the number of addicts was issued, but it had to be a proportionate response.
Gravity of Harm: Hypersensitivity:
What is it?
The harm caused must be substantial. Courts won’t consider minor or fleeting annoyances as nuisances, especially if the complainant is overly sensitive to something. If a person is unusually sensitive (e.g., to noise or smells), the court may not rule in their favor.
Key Case:
Heath v Major of Brighton (1908): A plaintiff had an unusually sensitive sense of smell. The court ruled this was not enough to claim a nuisance.
Key Case:
Robinson v Kilvert (1889): The court ruled that heat from a neighboring business did not constitute a nuisance because it wasn’t interfering with the ordinary enjoyment of the plaintiff’s property—only a specific type of paper was affected, not regular use of the property.
Nuisance as a Continuing Wrong:
Key Idea:
Nuisance is often seen as a continuing wrong—a situation that persists over time and causes ongoing harm. A single, fleeting event that doesn’t recur is unlikely to be classified as a nuisance.
Case Example: Halpin v. Tara Mines – A nuisance can be a continuing state of affairs, where the defendant remains responsible for it as long as the interference continues.
Who Can Be Sued?
- Creator of the Nuisance:
Liability:
The person who created the nuisance is usually liable, whether or not they still occupy the land.
Example: If someone creates a nuisance (e.g., noise or pollution) but moves away, they can still be sued.
- The Landlord:
General Rule:
Landlords typically aren’t liable for nuisances occurring on their property because they are not the occupiers.
Example: A tenant causing noise in an apartment won’t make the landlord liable.
However, landlords can be liable in specific cases:
Landlord authorizes the nuisance:
If the landlord allows the nuisance to occur or continue, they can be held responsible. This can be express (directly allowing the nuisance) or implied (the nuisance is inevitable based on how the premises are constructed).
Case Example: Goldfarb v. Williams – A social club created noise at a leased property, and the landlord was held liable because they knew the noise would be inevitable based on the property’s design.
Landlord’s Knowledge:
If a landlord knows or should have known about a nuisance when a tenancy began, they can be held liable.
Case Example: St. Anne’s Well – A landlord was responsible because they were aware of the nuisance when the tenancy started.
Landlord’s Repair Obligations:
If the landlord has a contractual obligation to repair the property, and the nuisance is due to their failure to do so, they can be sued for nuisance.
Case Example: Mint v. Good – A landlord was held liable for a nuisance resulting from a failure to keep the property in repair.
3. The Occupier:
Responsibility:
If an occupier (even a tenant) authorizes the nuisance or if they allow it to continue, they can be sued for nuisance.
Liability for Actions of Others:
Occupiers can be held responsible if their employees, contractors, or licensees create a nuisance.
Case Example: Bower v. Peate – An occupier was held liable for nuisance caused by an independent contractor.
Obligation to Act:
An occupier is only liable if they are aware of the nuisance and fail to address it. If the nuisance is caused by a trespasser or natural causes, the occupier is only liable if they fail to take reasonable steps to fix it.
Case Example: Sedleigh-Denleigh v. O’Callaghan (1940) – The occupier was held responsible because they allowed a drainage ditch to become blocked, causing flooding.
Reasonableness:
The court considers the resources of the occupier and whether they could reasonably address the nuisance. If the occupier has limited resources, they are only expected to take reasonable steps.
Who May Sue for Private Nuisance?
Traditionally, only those with ownership or possession of land can sue for nuisance. But the law recognizes that tenants or even non-owners in certain cases can also bring claims.
Occupier of Land:
Jones v. Chappell: A tenant in possession can sue, even if only on a weekly tenancy.
RDS v. Yates: Ownership or exclusive possession is important, but an occupier (even without formal ownership) can sue.
Hanrahan v. Merck Sharp and Dohme: Children or family members of the property owner can sue if they are significantly impacted, even if they aren’t the legal owners.
Molumby v. Kearns: The concept of “occupier” can be flexible, depending on the nature and extent of control over the property.
Key Constitutional Support:
Article 41 of the Irish Constitution and international human rights law support the idea that family members (even without legal ownership) can claim nuisance if affected in their home, especially considering children’s rights.
Contrast with Case Law:
Hunter v. Canary Wharf: Mere licensees (like family members without ownership or lease) cannot claim for nuisance.
Key Cases and Principles:
Goldfarb v. Williams: Landlords can be liable for nuisance if they authorized it, either explicitly or implicitly.
Sedleigh-Denleigh v. O’Callaghan: Occupiers must act reasonably to end a nuisance once they are aware of it.
Mint v. Good: Landlords may be sued if they fail to repair the premises and the failure results in a nuisance.
WHEN IS AN OWNER NOT LIABLE
southwark v mills and tanner:
normal noises coming from houses ( baby crying, tv noise, washing machine is normal as it is a part and right too everyday/ house.
eg using a washing machine that is loud is normal, but putting it by the wall of a shared apartment is not ok as it is disturbing the neighbour.
GILLEN V FAIR:
an owner will not be held for private nuisance if their tree or branch is over at the neighbours it was “ hidden” . aka it was not seen during inspection, therefore not ur fault.
