Nuisance Flashcards
Benjamin v Storr
The damage must be “of a substantial character not fleeting or evanescent” and thus the temporal nature of an injury will suggest it is too trivial to be a nuisance
St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping (temporary injury)
The law does not regard trifling and small inconveniences, but only regards sensible inconveniences, injuries which sensibly diminish the comfort, enjoyment or value of the property which is affected.”
St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping (locality)
It is necessary to consider the nature of the locality and a nuisance must involve something over and above the everyday inconveniences inevitable in that locality.
Coventry v Lawrence (2 locality precedents)
i. The nature of the locality is to be determined taking into account any activity in the locality to the extent it does not constitute a nuisance to C
ii. Where planning permission, strategic or not, has been granted with regard to the activity complained of as a nuisance, the planning permission is NOT to be treated as altering the nature of the locality,
Kennaway v Thompson (contrast)
If D’s activity is socially useful but it is doing serious damage to C such that C is bearing the burden alone of an activity from which many others benefit, an injunction will usually be granted rather than damages (contrast Dennis v MoD, where injunction would have caused extreme inconvenient)
Heath v Mayor of Brighton
No regard is to be had to special needs of invalids or special occupational needs.
Robinson v Kilvert
Someone carrying out a sensitive trade cannot complain if that trade is injured by D doing something lawful which could only injure an exceptionally delicate trade.
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (EVEN IF?)
If D’s act is motivated by pure spite, that may render it devoid of social utility and consequently unreasonable EVEN IF it would otherwise be justified on grounds of reciprocity between neighbors
What is the standard of care for nuisance?
Cambridge Water = there is none; the control mechanism is the principle of reasonable user and NOT reasonable care, so if D is found to have created the nuisance he cannot mitigate liability merely by showing he took reasonable care.
What if the type of nuisance created was not reasonably foreseeable by D when he did the acts complained of?
Cambridge Water - he will not be liable for that interference nor for further interference if he has taken all reasonable steps to abate it once he has been made aware of its possibility
When will occupiers be liable for a nuisance they did not create?
Sedleigh-Denfield - They will be liable during the period of their occupancy but liability ceases on disposal if they didn’t create it.
Lippiatt
If D knows of repeated acts by those in occupation of his land which constitute a nuisance, he will be liable for not taking steps to evict them.
Sedleigh-Denfield (extension)
If the nuisance was not created by D, he may nevertheless continue the nuisance if once he knows/ought to know of its existence he fails to take reasonable steps to abate it despite being in a position to do so effectively (extended by Leakey to acts of nature)
Goldman v Hargrave
Where D has had the risk thrust upon him the standard required of the occupier will be what is reasonable to expect of him in his individual circumstances, including his modest resources
Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd
If D’s resources are limited in comparison to the magnitude of the hazard, it would not be fair, just and reasonable to expect D to remedy the hazard. D’s duty might be limitd to warning and informing C of the hazard.
