Nuisance

Question 1

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 1

Def nuisance “an action (or sometimes a failure to act) on the part of the defendant” interference w/ C’s enjoyment of land
- Doesn’t mention interference relates w/ D’s land
- Illustrates: planning permission granted for a
development changing nature of locality (motor sports);
question of location and planning permission can be taken into account
- if nuisance over 20yrs may be defence of prescription

Question 2

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 2

Three categories of nuisance
- Encroachment on neighbour’s land
- Direct physical injury to a neighbour’s land
- Interference with neighbour’s enjoyment of his land
+ Tv reception ≠ legally protected interest + C must have relevant property interest; no recovery for personal damage

Question 3

Crown river cruises v Kimbolton fireworks

Answer 3

Firework display, set fire to neighbour’s property
→ A one-off event can amount to nuisance
→ Must be a “state of affairs” giving rise to risk f escape of dangerous material

Question 4

Sturges v Bridgman

Answer 4

D = business with noisy equipment >20y

D’s business not preventable or actionable thus not capable of founding a prescription right

Question 5

St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping

Answer 5

D= copper smelting business. Damage caused to C’s crops, tress. Several industrial businesses in locality.
→ When the damage = physical property; the locality principle is irrelevant. Only relevant in cases of personal discomfort.

Question 6

Christie v Davey

Answer 6

Music teacher. Neighbour disturbs class on purpose → Nuisance because motivated by malice (though rare cases)

Question 7

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet

Answer 7

D fired gun on his land close to farm to distress foxes.

→ Despite abnormal sensitivity (fox), succeed because malice

Question 8

Bradford v Pickles

Answer 8

• Malice does not render a lawful act unlawful

- Extract water beneath land ≠ legally protected interest

Question 9

Network Rail v Morris

Answer 9

New track circuits in railway, magnetic interference with electric guitars in recording studio. Lose several clients.

• Interference was not foreseeable
• Equipment = extraordinary sensitive

Question 10

Robinson v Kilvert

Answer 10

C= paper merchant, very sensitive to heat. D releases heat → Only nuisance bc of hypersensitivity, so not liable

Question 11

Miller v Jackson

Answer 11

Cricket ground case

• Helpful for community irrelevant, C still has rights
• But taken into account for remedy (here: damages, not injunction)

Question 12

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callagham

Answer 12

3P. Occupier continues nuisance if he fails to bring it to an end. Adopts it if he makes use of the nuisance.

Question 13

Goldman v Hargraves

Answer 13

Acts of nature. D liable for naturally occurring hazard, if aware and failed to remove it. (Gum tree on fire, spread neighbour)

Question 14

Holbeck Hall Hotel

Answer 14

Relevance of resources. Hotel on cliff, massive landslip, hotel became unsafe and was demolished. Council owned the land btw hotel/sea, but not liable, courts take into account D’s £.

Question 15

Shelfer v City of london electric lighting Co

Answer 15

Shelfer criteria. Damages in lieu granted if:
- Injury to C’s right is small, can be estimated in £
- Pecuniary compensation is adequate
- Injunction would be oppressive to D
+ Concern that right to break law not available for purchase

Question 16

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 16

D owned a mill, constructed reservoir, over disused mine. Water filtered through, spread to working mine, causing extensive damage.
→ Strictly liable for damage caused by non-natural use of land. Negligence not required.

Question 17

Stannard v Gore

Answer 17

D own business next door to C, C was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property; not liable - fire occurred, not escaped!
Requirements: (extended RvF)
- D owner of the land
- Bringing/keeping exceptionally dangerous things on
land (accumulation/dangerousness if thing escapes)
- Must have realised (/ought) that if escape, high risk of danger
- Unnatural use of land
- Escape causes damages on C’s rights on his land (≠ personal injury or death)
- Damage is not too remote

Question 18

Transco Plc v Stockport MBC

Answer 18

Escape of water from pipe, caused embankment to collapse + gas pip exploded. Not RvF; not unnatural use of land.

Question 19

Defences to RvF

Answer 19

- Contributory negligence

• Consent
• Act of god (unforeseeable natural event
• Act of 3P
• Statutory authority

Question 20

Private nuisance types

Answer 20

(1) Nuisance by encroachment of n’s land
(2) Nuisance by direct physical injury to n’s land
(3) Nuisance by interference with n’s quiet enjoyment of land

Question 21

Cambridge Water

Answer 21

Leek of chemicals to water; too remote;
The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance and claims based on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in the same way as it applies to claims based in negligence

Question 22

Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd

Answer 22

Planning permission =/= automatic approval of nuisance; but a planning authority can, through its development plans and decisions, alter the character of a neighbourhood

Question 23

Harrison v Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company

Answer 23

building work carried out at reasonable times of the day did not amount to a nuisance; one-off event

Question 24

R v Moore

Answer 24

Responsibility; If a person collects together a crowd of people to the annoyance of his n’s nuisance that is a nuisance for which he is answerable

Question 25

Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum

Answer 25

Preventing loss of life by nuisance would be a defence

Question 26

Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd

Answer 26

no liability arises for a pure omissions; exceptions:
a special relationship,
an assumption of responsibility, where the defendant is in control of a 3rd party that causes the damage,
where the defendant is in control of land or dangerous thing.

Question 27

Richards v Lothian

Answer 27

malicious act of 3rd party = no liability

Question 28

Dennis v Ministry of Defence

Answer 28

Fighter-jets in training exercises; flied through valleys past C’s farm; found to be nuisance; damages not injunction, since it was in public interest to train the pilots

Question 29

Read v Lyons

Answer 29

In the absence of any proof of negligence on behalf of the defendant or an escape of dangerous thing, there was no cause of action on which the claimant could succeed. (RvF)