Nuisance Flashcards
Coventry v Lawrence
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
Hunter v Canary Wharf
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
Crown river cruises v Kimbolton fireworks
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
Sturges v Bridgman
D = business with noisy equipment >20y
D’s business not preventable or actionable thus not capable of founding a prescription right
St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping
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.
Christie v Davey
Music teacher. Neighbour disturbs class on purpose → Nuisance because motivated by malice (though rare cases)
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet
D fired gun on his land close to farm to distress foxes.
→ Despite abnormal sensitivity (fox), succeed because malice
Bradford v Pickles
- Malice does not render a lawful act unlawful
- Extract water beneath land ≠ legally protected interest
Network Rail v Morris
New track circuits in railway, magnetic interference with electric guitars in recording studio. Lose several clients.
- Interference was not foreseeable
- Equipment = extraordinary sensitive
Robinson v Kilvert
C= paper merchant, very sensitive to heat. D releases heat → Only nuisance bc of hypersensitivity, so not liable
Miller v Jackson
Cricket ground case
- Helpful for community irrelevant, C still has rights
- But taken into account for remedy (here: damages, not injunction)
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callagham
3P. Occupier continues nuisance if he fails to bring it to an end. Adopts it if he makes use of the nuisance.
Goldman v Hargraves
Acts of nature. D liable for naturally occurring hazard, if aware and failed to remove it. (Gum tree on fire, spread neighbour)
Holbeck Hall Hotel
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 £.
Shelfer v City of london electric lighting Co
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
Rylands v Fletcher
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.
Stannard v Gore
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
Transco Plc v Stockport MBC
Escape of water from pipe, caused embankment to collapse + gas pip exploded. Not RvF; not unnatural use of land.
Defences to RvF
- Contributory negligence
- Consent
- Act of god (unforeseeable natural event
- Act of 3P
- Statutory authority
Private nuisance types
(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
Cambridge Water
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
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd
Planning permission =/= automatic approval of nuisance; but a planning authority can, through its development plans and decisions, alter the character of a neighbourhood
Harrison v Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company
building work carried out at reasonable times of the day did not amount to a nuisance; one-off event
R v Moore
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
Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum
Preventing loss of life by nuisance would be a defence
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
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.
Richards v Lothian
malicious act of 3rd party = no liability
Dennis v Ministry of Defence
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
Read v Lyons
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)
