Nuisance

Question 1

Hunter v Canary Wharf Tower

Answer 1

No claim as needed proprietary interest and loss of TV signal was only loss of enjoyment rather than damage.

Question 2

Tetley v Chitty

Answer 2

Council had authorised the nuisance by allowing a go-kart club on their land.

Question 3

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan

Answer 3

Nuisance caused when D failed to deal with blocked flood pipe.

Question 4

Miller v Jackson

Answer 4

Compromise to allow cricket to continue by paying damages to C.

Question 5

Robinson v Kilvert

Answer 5

No nuisance as paper business was particularly sensitive.

Question 6

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

Answer 6

D liable despite sensitivity of foxes as he was shooting maliciously.

Question 7

Christie v Davey

Answer 7

D liable for banging trays maliciously as a response to violin lessons.

Question 8

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 8

Damages as compromise for speedway, prescription starts from new use of land.

Question 9

Sturges v Bridgman

Answer 9

Vibrations from sweetshop started being a nuisance from new building of doctor’s clinic; no prescription.

Question 10

Laws v Florinplace

Answer 10

Sex shop in residential area was unreasonable due to locality.