Nuisance

Question 1

Malone v Laskey 1909

Answer 1

established that claims must have a legal interest in the property for private nuisance

Question 2

Khorasandjian v Bush 1993

Answer 2

claim allowed for whole family after phonecalls being made

Question 3

Hunter v Canary Wharf 1998

Answer 3

reversed khorasandjian back to original principle set in Malone v Laskey (had to have legal interest)

Question 4

Sturges v Bridgman 1879

Answer 4

“what would be a nuisance in Belgrave square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey” (locality)

Question 5

Laws v Florin Place Ltd 1981

Answer 5

sex shop in residential area was a nuisance because of family values

Question 6

Spicer v Smee 1946

Answer 6

not an obvious nuisance, one off even caused by faulty wires (fire) (duration)

Question 7

Miller v Jackson 1977

Answer 7

cricket was not a nuisance as it benefited community (social utility) but would be compensated for damages

Question 8

Robinson v Kilvert 1889

Answer 8

claim failed due to sensitivity of paper

Question 9

Christie v Davey 1893

Answer 9

claim failed due to malice shown by making more noise than music teacher

Question 10

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett 1936

Answer 10

claim failed due to malice shown by scaring the mink so they would eat their own babies

Question 11

Hammersmith Railway v Brand 1869

Answer 11

statutory authority stopped railway from being a nuisance

Question 12

Sturges v Bridgeman

Answer 12

showed the right of prescription won’t apply if beneficial to community

Question 13

Kennaway v Thomspon 1981

Answer 13

injunction issued for nuisance of speed boat racing to balance interests of both parties

Question 14

Dennis v MoD 2003

Answer 14

damages awarded for nuisance of RAF base

Question 15

A.G v PYA Quarries Ltd 1957

Answer 15

public nuisance is “something which affects a reasonable class of her majesty’s citizens (“a class of people so widespread in its range or indiscriminate in its effects that it would be unreasonable to expect one person to take steps to put a stop to it”) materially or in the reasonable comfort and convenience of life”

Question 16

Attorney General for Ontario v Orange Productions 1971

Answer 16

music festivals can amount to public nuisance

Question 17

Holling v Yorkshire Traction 1948

Answer 17

emission of smoke that made road use dangerous amounted to public nuisance

Question 18

Corby Group Litigation v Corby BC 2009

Answer 18

atmospheric toxic waste leading to birth defects amounted to public nuisance

Question 19

R v Rimmington 2006

Answer 19

racially abusive letters not public nuisance as they only affected a certain group of people

Question 20

Castle v St Augustine Links 1922

Answer 20

golf course with badly placed hole caused public nuisance to road users - claimant suffered above and beyond as he was hit by ball

Question 21

Tate v Lyle Industries v Greater London Council 1983

Answer 21

public nuisance as council was not keeping waterways up to scratch which stopped transportation - claimant suffered above and beyond as they had to pay for it cleaning

Question 22

Rylands v Fletcher 1968

Answer 22

if you bring something non natural onto your land and it escapes, you are responsible for reasonably foreseeable damage

Question 23

Transco PLC v Stockport MBC 2003

Answer 23

decided Rylands is a sub category of private nuisance so you must have a legal interest in the land (claim failed as water was not an exceptional risk)

Question 24

Giles v Walker 1890

Answer 24

claim failed as weeds are naturally present

Question 25

Ellison v MoD 1997

Answer 25

claim failed as rainwater was a natural accumulation

Question 26

Hale v Jennings Bros 1938

Answer 26

claim successful as fairground chair could cause danger if it escaped

Question 27

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather 1994

Answer 27

bulk storage of chemicals is a non natural use of land

Question 28

Rickards v Lothian 1913

Answer 28

water that overflowed from tap was not an unnatural use of land

Question 29

Read v Lyons 1946

Answer 29

claim failed as the thing that caused the explosion had not escaped (on the defendants property)

Question 30

Perry v Kendricks Transport 1955

Answer 30

no liability for 3rd party placing lit match in petrol tank of coach

Question 31

Nichols v Marsland 1876

Answer 31

no liability for artificial lake flooding & overflowing after violent storm

Question 32

Smeaton v Ilford Corporation 1954

Answer 32

defendant had statutory duty to get rid of sewer waste so no liability when it overflowed