Nuisance

Question 0

Thompson-Schwab v Costaki

Answer 0

Nuisance may be found even in cases of emotional distress, like running a brothel

Question 1

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan

Christie v Davey

Answer 1

Private nuisance - sometimes physical e.g. water flowing onto land, or tree roots growing – often intangible such as noise and sounds

Question 2

Hunter v Canaray Wharf and London Docklands

Answer 2

The courts have stopped at interference with ‘delight’ and a nuisance will not be found with things like views, TV receptions, etc.

Question 3

Leakey v National Trust

Answer 3

Continuing nuisance - being aware of a naturally arising hazard and failing to take reasonable precautions

Question 4

Bybrook Barn Garden Centre v Kent CC

Answer 4

Expansion of Leakey - the council did not only have a duty to maintain the river, but when aware of the increased water flow and its dangers, a duty to enlarge it - the council could also afford to do so

Question 5

Southwark London Borough Council v Mills

Answer 5

Unreasonableness of the interference - 1. sensitivity, 2. locality, 3. duration and timing, 4. malice

Question 6

Robinson v Kilvert

McKinnon Industries v Walker

Answer 6

Normally if a C is oversensitive then the interference will not be considered unreasonable, however, if the C can prove that right to ordinary enjoyment has been impeached then they will then claim for extra sensitivity

Question 7

Network Rail v Morris

Answer 7

The sensitivity debate has been called into question - they said here that it was to be considered whether the damage was foreseeable or not

Question 8

St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping

Answer 8

Locality - what is a nuisance in one area will not be a nuisance in another area

Damage - the C must show that the nuisance actually caused the damage complained of - physical but maybe distress/inconvenience

Question 9

Halsey v Esso Petroleum

Answer 9

Duration and timing of a nuisance will affect whether it is reasonable - noisy activities during the day may be okay but probably not in the middle of the night - the longer the state of affairs goes on for, the more likely it is to be unreasonable - if sufficiently bad all round, a short one will also be unreasonable

Question 10

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

Answer 10

A short one-off incident can be a nuisance - this was a firework display and the debris ran down the C’s boat, which overpowered the short nature

Question 11

Christie v Davey

Answer 11

Malice contributing the unreasonableness - what would have been considered reasonable, e.g. making noise, will be considered unreasonable if done maliciously, e.g. making noise to disturb a neighbour’s party

Question 12

Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers

Answer 12

Anyone who creates a nuisance by some act (not omission) can be sued for nuisance, regardless of whether that person owns or occupies the land from which the nuisance originates

Question 13

Matania v National Provincial Bank

Answer 13

Occupiers of land can be sued for nuisance caused by themselves, their employees and, in special cases, independent contractors as an exception to the rules of vicarious liability - also for trespassers and previous occupiers

Question 14

Tetley v Chitty

Answer 14

Landowner liability for nuisance even when not in occupation - 1. preexistence of a nuisance, 2. obligation to repair, 3. authorisation of a nuisance

Question 15

Khorasandjian v Bush

overruled Hunter v Canary Wharf and London Docklands

Answer 15

It was no longer necessary to have a proprietary interest in the land to sue in private nuisance, here it was the daughter of the landowners - however, in H v C, they reverted back to the original view, as there was now a new tort of harassment covering K - they reverted back to keep the distinction between tort and negligence

Question 16

Dobson v Thames Water

Answer 16

The narrowing of nuisance in Hunter did not infringe Art 8 rights as the claim brought by the person with the proprietary interest will take into account all the people living there

Question 17

Allen v Gulf Oil

Answer 17

Statutory authority will provide a defence to nuisance

Question 18

Watson v Croft Promo-Sport

Answer 18

Planning permission may go towards justifying reasonableness of the use of a land, and, like here, it may stop an injunction being placed and damages being awarded instead

Question 19

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 19

Doubts the significance of planning permission in allowing land to cause a nuisance

Question 20

Sturges v Bridgman

Answer 20

Prescription - a defence against a private nuisance will be provided where a nuisance has been actionable for at least 20 years and that the C was aware of this during the period – the fact that the nuisance has been going on for 20 years may not be enough as here

Question 21

Bellew v Cement Co

Adams v Ursell

Answer 21

Public benefit is no defence to a claim of nuisance, however, the courts will take account of it when considering remedies

Question 22

Miller v Jackson

Answer 22

Voluntarily going into a situation does not defeat a claim in nuisance - NB Denning’s dissent, attractive argument but the D would be able to defeat a claim by merely being there first

Question 23

Kennaway v Thompson

Answer 23

Remedies - injunction - discretionary and perpetual or partial (restriction on times, for example)

Question 24

Benjamin v Storr

Answer 24

Public nuisance in tort - must prove ‘special damage’ which is above what the other persons in the class suffered - e.g. being subject more to the nuisance or it costing the C money

Question 25

AG V PYA Quarries

Answer 25

Public nuisance - ‘a class of her majesty’s subjects’ - must show ‘particular damage’ over and above the public generally

Same applies as in Hunter that must have a proprietary interest in the affected land