Nuisance

Question 1

St Helens v Tipping

Answer 1

Factory fumes damaged homes, but was in industrial town with low amenity value, however physical damage to property was unreasonable.

Question 2

Network Rail v Morris

Answer 2

Railways circuits interfered with recording studio equipment, no nuisance.

Question 3

Christie v Davey

Answer 3

Neighbours bought drum kit as revenge on neighbour who was music teacher, they had committed nuisance, malice was the only purpose of the action.

Question 4

Hollywood Silver Fox

Answer 4

Sign advertising business bothered neighbours who surrounded the property and made a great deal of knowledge, causing foxes to miscarry, was nuisance.

Question 5

Bradford v Pickles

Answer 5

Can exercise a right maliciously without it being nuisance. Pickles diverted a water course running under his land to demand payment from Bradford.

Question 6

Malone v Laskey

Answer 6

Claim against landlord for not properly affixing cistern to wall failed as there was no proprietary interest.

Question 7

Khorasanijan v Bush

Answer 7

Claim against stalker succeeded, she had right of occupation. Was overruled by Hunter v Canary Wharf, they held must have a proprietary right, in this case the claimant only had a license.

Question 8

Delaware Mansions

Answer 8

Owner of property was able to sue previous owner for encroachment of tree roots even though it happened before he bought the property.

Question 9

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 9

Children have no proprietary interest, can’t sue.

Question 10

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

Answer 10

Local authority laid pipe on land without permission, owners “adopted” the pipe, caused damage to neighbouring land, they were liable for adopting the damage.

Question 11

Baxter v Camden

Answer 11

Landlord taken to expressly authorise acts of tenants.

Question 12

Lipatt

Answer 12

Local authority allowed travellers to remain on land, authorised the damage they caused.

Question 13

The Burrow Mump

Answer 13

Tenants had warned the National Trust of cracks appearing in the mump, there was actionable damage based on their “measured duty”

Question 14

Holbeck Hall v Scarborough

Answer 14

Cliff fell away from under hotel, court held defendants may not ignore the obvious but are not under a duty to undertake expensive research. The duty was based on knowledge of hazard and ability to foresee the consequences, and the ability to abate.

Question 15

Marcic v Thames Water

Answer 15

Home regularly flooded with sewage, argument that there was a statutory duty to build new sewers and claimed under Article 8 ECHR. Held that the human rights claim failed, and that because there was a statutory scheme of complaints, that was conclusive.

Question 16

Dobson v Thames Water

Answer 16

Concerned smell and mosquitoes caused by sewage treatment. Sued under different section of same statute as Marcic. Claim was allowed as it concerned negligence, and negligent nuisances were outside the scope of the statutory complaints scheme.

Question 17

Gillingham v Medway Docks

Answer 17

Council gave planning permission to create 24 hour commercial dock, residents claimed in nuisance, held planning permission isn’t a licence to commit nuisance but a planning authority may alter the character of a neighbourhood rendering activities which may previously have been actionable in nuisance not actionable.

Question 18

GLC v Tate and Lyle

Answer 18

Ferry terminals constructed by GLC caused siltation of the river, T&L had to pay for dredging, claim in public nuisance succeeded since the situation caused interference with public navigation rights.

Question 19

Noble v Harrison

Answer 19

Tree shed limb onto passer-by. Landowner wasn’t liable as it couldn’t have been discovered by inspection. Person is liable by nuisance constituted by the state of his property if (1) he causes it, (2) if by neglect of some duty he allowed it to arise, and (3) if, when it has arisen, he omits to remedy it within a reasonable time after he became aware or ought to have become aware of it.

Question 20

Corby Group Litigation

Answer 20

The same conduct can be public and private nuisance. Private injury cannot be claimed for in public or private nuisance.

Question 21

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 21

Escape from land of dangerous things accumulated for the purpose of the defendant in the pursuit of a non-natural user. Strict liability rule.

Question 22

Transco v Stockport MBC

Answer 22

Rule in Rylands v Fletcher is only engaged where the defendant’s use is extraordinary and unusual.

Question 23

Stannard v Gore

Answer 23

Fire escaping wasn’t under Rylands v Fletcher.

Question 24

Bamford v Turnley

Answer 24

Court considered common and ordinary use of land - case concerned neighbour making bricks and causing smoke to drift into neighbouring land.

Question 25

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 25

Planning permission can’t authorise nuisance but it can change the character of a locality. Any claims of nuisance have to be considered in reference to the changed character.

Question 26

Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries Leather

Answer 26

ECL were not liable as the damage was too remote. Foreseeability is required under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher the same as in any other negligence. The Wagon Mound applies.