Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort law > Nuisance > Flashcards

Nuisance Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Private Nuisance (basic definition)

A

Where D unreasonably interferences with C’s reasonably enjoyment of his/her land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Environmental Protection Act 1990, part III, particularly sections 79 and 80

A

Statutory nuisance (not to do with tort)

  • local authorities can issue a notice for nuisance created
  • if party does not comply with the notice then party commits an offence

(a provision for appeal too)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Public nuisance

A

A BROAD CRIMINAL OFFENCE

An unlawful act or omission, which endangers the life, safety, health, property, or comfort of the public

e. g. pollution or roadblock
- prosecution left to public bodies (remedies usually a criminal fine, or injunction if it is on-going)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Civil Liability in Public Nuisance

A

a private individual can sue under public nuisance if she/he suffers “special damage” (damage above and beyond damage suffered by public at large)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby

A

(children born with defects because mother lived in area of pollution)

  • can bring a claim for special damage as a result of public nuisance
  • useful because sometimes damage is not to land, but physical damage etc.,
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

A TORT AGAINST LAND

A

Hunter v Canary Wharf
- CLAIMS by people who did not have exclusive possession failed
(HL affirmed the important rule that only people with exclusive possession can sue (still good law today)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

REASONABLE USER

A

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd

  • as a matter of law a person is allowed to put a building on his/her land
  • so that is reasonable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How do we decide if it is unreasonable? (list)

A 
INTENSITY
DURATION
TIME OF DAY
TEMPORARY
SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board

A

social expectations are considered (this is a case where TV interference did not count as interference, it is just recreational)

  • but in Hunter TV interference counts as nuisance (20 years later)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

LOCALITY

A

St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping

  • LOCALITY is NOT relevant to physical damage to property
  • locality is only relevant if nuisance is causing physical discomfort to people wanting to use/enjoy the land
  • claim here is about physical damage to property (plants) so locality was not taken into account
  • allowing C to win
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Sturges v Bridgman (locality)

A

CA made a contrast between standard a person is entitled to expect in a residential vs. commercial area

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Lawrence v Fen Tigers (locality)

A

more helpful to think of PATTERN OF USES

  • sometimes no “essential nature”
  • might be a mixture
  • so no need to decide one or the other
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Sturges v Bridgman (coming to the nuisance)

A

Does it make a difference that defendant was there first?

NO DEFENCE TO NUISANCE
- doesn’t matter who was there first (irrelevant)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Miller v Jackson

A

CA says it is nuisance even though D was there 100 years or so and C just built the house

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Lawrence v Fen Tigers (coming to the nuisance)

A

SC recently affirmed Sturges (no defence of coming to the nuisance)

LORD NEUBERGER - unless there has been a change to the use of the land by C (i.e. D stays the same, but C changed his use of the land)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Robinson v Kilvert

A

SENSITIVE CLAIMANTS

  • no defence for sensitive claimants (don’t consider it)
17
Q

Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris

A

SENSITIVE CLAIMANTS (current leading case)

  • all comes down to reasonableness and foreseeability
  • so doesn’t matter whether or not C’s use was extraordinary
  • if D had a way of knowing C’s use then that’s foreseeable and can be considered
18
Q

Christie v Davey

A

malice on the part of D is determinative of the outcome
(is considered)

  • music teacher case
19
Q

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

A

D’s malice/motive made a difference - it makes it a nuisance

CONFIRMED RELEVANCE OF NUISANCE

20
Q

Hunter v Canary Wharf

A

Lord Cooke (dissent) – this relevance of malice would be a general principle in law of nuisance

  • If you put up a structure to annoy a neighbor = nuisance
  • This is sort of a support for general principle of malice but this was a dissent speech
21
Q

Bradford Corp v Pickles

A

HL rejected this argument – said D is entitled to do what he wants!

Motive is irrelevant (doesn’t matter that his motive was malicious)

  • this case is probably specifically about rules with interference with the flow of water
22
Q

Bamford v Turnley

A

PUBLIC BENEFIT = DOES NOT COME INTO THE DELIBERATION

23
Q

Dennis v MOD

A

PUBLIC BENEFIT DOES NOT ENTER INTO THE Q OF WHETHER C SUFFERS FROM UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE WITH LAND

(in this case it was nuisance though)

24
Q

Allen v Gulf Oil Refinery

A

statutory authority is a complete defence in nuisance

25
Q

Lawrence v Fen Tigers (planning permission)

A
  • PP is not like statutory authority (not a defence)
  • Planning permission might change the feel of the locality (i.e. changing area from predominantly industrial or predominantly residential)

Generally PP is not relevant in assessing nature of locality unless it has very specific instructions (Neuberger)

PP is relevant if it is strategic (Carnwarth)

26
Q

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan

A

D IS LIABLE FOR CONTINUING THE NUISANCE (even though he didn’t put the grill there)

D knew, or ought to have known, the problem but didn’t do anything to prevent the spread to C’s land

27
Q

Leakey v National Trust

A

CA APPLIED DENFIELD PRINICPLE

If D knew of potential problem which did materialise, D is liable

D is only required to take reasonable steps though (if it was an overpowering natural force - D is fine)

28
Q

Coventry v Lawrence (no.2)

A

Landlord’s liability is less extensive than liability for continuing a nuisance

Landlord is liable in two situations
1) Landlord directly participated in creation of nuisance

2) landlord could be taken to have authorised the nuisance by letting the property to this particular tenant

29
Q

Hussain v Lancaster City Council

A

(local authority housing - racist tenants beat up C shop owner)

  • council were not liable
  • liability in nuisance is about the way people use their land
30
Q

Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council

A

(travellers in Ds land trespassed on C’s land)

  • C won!
  • nuisance emanated from D’s land
  • different with Hussain is probably the fact that here, D wasn’t a landlord
31
Q

St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping

A

Fault is irrelevant because liability is strict for the creation of nuisance

32
Q

Goldman v Hargrave

A

in adopting/continuing a nuisance - fault is relevant (necessary for D to either know, or ought to know, that nuisance is taking place)

take into account when assessing amount of expected from D:

1) amount of effort D would need to make
2) financial resources

33
Q

Leakey v National trust

A

Obiter:
Troubled by “financial resources” section of Goldman

Interpreted this to mean “broad assessment”

They were very resistant to the idea that there should be a close analysis of wealth/spare resources of D

34
Q

Delaware Mansions v Westminster CC

A

you can recover compensatory damages for reduction in value

AND

Cost of remedial work

35
Q

The Wagon Mound (NO.2)

A

RULE: Reasonably foreseeable kinds of damage are recoverable in private nuisance

36
Q

Kennaway v Thompson

A

injunctions are NOT ALL OR NOTHING

CA granted injunction limiting number of races (focusing on races with bigger engines)

37
Q

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company

A

Traditionally, courts very reluctant to refuse injunctions

ONLY REFUSED IF:
Injury to C’s rights were small

Injury was capable of being estimated in money

It would be adequately compensated by money

It would be oppressive to grant an injunction

38
Q

Lawrence v Fen Tigers (injunctions)

A

SC CALL FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY (don’t follow Shelfer slavishly)

Tort law (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions