Nuisance Flashcards
what is nuisance?
say nuisance is minor but kris likes it
-“Nuisance is often viewed as a ‘minor’ tort with minimal implications or impact beyond the cosy world of neighbourly squabbles or ‘ordinary people’ against industry.”
[J Conaghan & W Mansell, ‘The Wrongs of Tort’ (1998) 124]
never really right/wrong so - good to argue
4 key areas in nusiance?
can be overlap
can sue in all 4
but need to understand which 1 need to be clear how and why using can use all 4 but certain ad and disad for using each
- public nusiance-quarries
- private nusiance- piece and quiet
- rylands-mine shaft
- stat nuisance- big stat= environmetnal protection act
public nusiance?
“An amorphous and unsatisfactory area of the law covering an ill-assorted collection of wrongs, some of which have little or no association with tort and only appear to fill a gap in the criminal law.”
[S Deakin, A Johnson & B Markesinis, ‘Tort Law’ (7th edn) 452]
- not that sympathetic to public nusiance
- most things covered in public nusiance -is a crime can be pros as crime and tort can do both
stat nuisance?
see it as sept tort- see as sep element within nusiance but also intextbooks put in public nusiance
private nusiance?
“Any unauthorised interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over it.’
[P Winfield (1931) 189,190]
- enjoyment of land- rules for it but people see this as frvierlous tort = need restrictions in placde
neg broke arm, def- used my name but this just enjoyment of land
what is nusiance also about?
commmunity, what we feel and believe as comm
e.g example of private nusiance claim-some 1 staring in apartment neighbouring squabbles but had tos tare back to se
ryland v fletcher?
people though this didnt exist but now were seeing resergence big case came out - narrowed categories
“This judgement is noteworthy because it is an outstanding example of a creative generalisation…. This epoch-making judgement owes much of its success to ‘the broad scope of the principle announced, the strength of conviction of its expounder, and the clearness of his exposition’”
[S Deakin, A Johnson & B Markesinis, ‘Tort Law’ (7th edn) 504]
- gap in law so created brand new law which was rylands
nuisance is one of cases that?
merges in different areas
recent times case for this - occupied process-City of London Corporation v. Samede [2014]- how get rid sued trespass etc breach of planning etc all nusiance - dumped on ct- so ct had to analyse which concept best
comparison with trespass?
Nuisance is INDIRECT & based on FAULT
trespasss is direct and more abotu strict liability nusiance doing at moment of time e.g throwwing chiar
public nusiance in depth? crime /civil?
crime and civil
Simple answer, both…
Magistrates court: unlimited fine / 6months imprisonment
Crown court: unlimited fine / life imprisonment
Although since R v. Rimmington (2005), cases involving morals or outraging public decency are no longer covered.
leading case for public nuisance?
AG v. PYA Quarries [1957]- noise vibrations dust affected local near by etc, cant hang stuf out for washing etc, noise from workers etc bad environmetn for them to live in
important about public= scale of it (community aspect) so wide spread not 1 person take community thing affects lots of people
quote for public nusiance in ag ?
“any nuisance is ‘public’ if it materially affects the comfort and convenience of a life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects” (Romer LJ) [184]
cases for public nuisance?
Rose v. Miles (1815)
Halsey v. Esso Petroleum co ltd [1961]
Thomas v. National Union of Mineworkers [1985]
Gillingham BC v. Medway (Chatham) Docks [1993]
Tate & Lyle Industries v. Greater London Council [1983]
pubic nusiance as a crime? cases?
- R v. Shorrock [1993]- rave, farmer lets rave happen, police found location shut down, so loud 275 complaints from 4 miles away - cts said rente out but cts said ought to have known = public nusiance aswell as civil offence crim
- R v. Chee Kew Ong [2000]- snip wires floodlights game gets abadoned- certain time but if too early - just basicall cheated flood lights- guard bribed another friend- consipracy charges broguht- public nusiance tunring of flood lights- prison for 4 yrs
Wandsworth LBC v. Railtrack plc [2001]-‘The Pigeon is
a rat with wings’
Commissioner Hoving (1966)ct said ur bridge adn fi aware of nusiance dont do nothing about it= public nusaicne
R v. Bourgass [2006]- argument stupid not clever- items found - ct - sentenced 17yrs - nusiance for terrosism to fight it cos not another stat for it - nusaicne used for everything e.g rave etc varied
R v. Rimmington; Goldstein [2005]-varied how dow e know public nusiance- no here- smoke ele- affects post office people dont get post- not public nusaince -yes ahd pubic effect but escape of assault didnt know - sue?- if theres a apartic stat offence we should use it, shouldnt use common law
Corby Group Litigation v. Corby DC [2009]-escape of toxic material - could use for eprsonal injury cases other torts against it
summary for public?
Leading case (Civil): AG v. PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169
So widespread / indiscriminate that it affects the community as a whole
However claimant must prove special damage over and above the community
Claimants do NOT need any property interests
Leading case (Criminal): R v. Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63
Inappropriate to charge common law offence
if a statutory option is available
what is stat nuisance?
argue brance of public nusiance
number of stat fall within this 5 of those use environmental act dont worry about others one used most often- only use 2 sections
1st sec epa?
s.79- lays down there is stat nuisance- presiditial to health/nuisance
cases for epa? s.79
Coventry City Council v. Cartwright [1975]-building site, let building rubber build up, rubble keep but other no, bricks look bad etc but dont smell or make noise = no nusiance but looks bad so could be - got rid of rubble and oter aspects and sued- council said no nuisance- if rats etc then maybe -theres no problem in health or nusiance
NCB v. Thorne [1976]- proof presidital health/nusaince
what does s.80 give?
abatement notice- notice issued to tell what problem is
if fail to comply under s.80 4 no. of penaliltes-
max - 5,000 plus 10% every day dont do if recuring just look on slide
what is important about abatement notices?
must be clear - if ambig cant give notice 2 you
must have complaince period- reasonabel time to do it 2 wks or month
if disagree with decision then can appeal to mag ct
number of defences in bullet points
defences for abatement?
Nuisance is not a statutory nuisance
Procedural defect with the notice- asked me to do dont ave power to do not my land
Is unduly onerous- with resources have cant fix want u want me to fix - subjective tort- my resources
Unreasonably precludes alternative means of abatement- if i can come up with diff way to resolve then i should be able to do that
Unduly restrictive time limits
‘Best Practicable means’ were used- did best i could, noone knew about this prob time existed, did best could when occured to years ago
summary of stat?
Main principle: Environmental Protection Act 1990, s.79-80
Follows the common law: ‘must be prejudicial to health or a nuisance’
Local Authority can issue abatement notices with clear instructions
However there are a number of possible defences…
what is private nusiance?
MOST COMPLICATED COS IF WE CAN SUE UNDER PRIVATE NUSIACNE AS STOPS FROM ME ENJOYMENT WE NEED TO SEE WHAT COSNT VALID
ENJOYMENT One possible Framework: Who can sue? Who is liable? Type of damage? Is interference reasonable? Is there a defence?
who can sue?
Malone v. Laskey [1907]- not judging present day- system comes of and bangs on head- use private nusaince- prob private nusiance i need to have interest in land, wife had no legal interest bare licensee, husband could sue but wife cant- no interest in land no private nusiance
Khorasandjian v. Bush- she served him once he stole her number and then he blogged about it , 18yrd c girl girl together split up but 23yrd inspired by those stories deomnstrate his comitment - obsservie nature nasty phone calls etc- so she needs remedy problem is private nusinace dont neeed interest for now well give you rememedy changed law to give her rem as she was desrving but problem is messed up whole law of private nusiance
Then….
Hunter v. Canary Wharf [1997]- 2 el to it»??
Brazil…??
summary of who?
Main principle: Hunter v. Canary Wharf [1997] 2 WLR 684
To bring an action in Private Nuisance you MUST have an interest in land
must be owner/occ causing nusi
who is liable?
Sedleigh-Denfield v. O’Callaghan [1940]
Goldman v. Hargrave [1967] (PC)- act of god fire expands went on to neighbours land but ceased to be act of god cos tried to put out
Leakey v. National Trust [1980]
Holbeck Hall Hotel v. Scarborough BC [2000]
Tetley v. Chitty [1986] 1 All ER 663
summary for who is laible?
Leading case: Leakey v. National Trust [1980] QB 485
It doesn’t matter whether the owner / occupier caused the nuisance or whether it was caused by an Act of God / 3rd party, if it was adopted and continued.
Any nuisance has to be forseeable
Type of damage?
St.Helen’s Smelting v. Tipping [1865]- to mark differnce - needs to produce prop damage and immunity damage two not same
types of damages cases?
easier to bring claim in physcial damage les chance of flodgates
immunity damage- upset someone more chance of floodagtes opening due to sensitivity= mroe steps in palce
moral damage- thomas case- brotherl- moral nisane aswell lwoers character of neighboruhod hw maybe times chnaged so might have to take things ieth pinch of salt
is interference reasonable?
get defence too-
intereference cases?
Bamford v. Turnley (1862)- number of factors-smelly bricks
Walter v. Selfe (1851)- if want to bring case in private nusiance- if lil incovnenience fine needs to be substantive
Southwark LBC v. Mills [1999]-converted house nusiance through walls probematic = normal everyday what we would in residence= fine- if played music till night = nuisance see whether reasonable or not so we can make noise just if reasonable dependant on you
what are the fluid?
factors for whether reasonable or not , only hesitation for recent dec, sensitivity(argue moved into foreseeability)
F.L.U.I.D.S: Forseeability Locality Utility Intention / Malice Duration Sensitivity
what is meant by foreeseability?
key thigns when look at nusiance, yes nusaince happen but could u foressee
3rd party/acts of god etc
foreseeability cases?
Rickards v. Lothian [1913]- left taps - could make arg ability to turn tap should be restricted- now if foresseable if taps on didnt do nithing about it= adopted nusiance
Act of Cow (Cameron v. Hamilton’s Auction Marts [1955])- shop flooded cos of cow, cant sue cow tried suing farmer - no remedy - if knew cow nuts then okay but if knew cow crazy could be
locality cases?
Sturges v. Bridgman (1879)- it depends on where u are,e.g coutnry side dont likea nimal semlls oh well but if city differnt
Gillingham BC v. Medway (Chatham) Docks [1993]-area no longer sleepy town ??
Allen v. Gulf Oil [1981]- authorside by private stat - build oil refinery can- if parl said then u can-yes it was prety but u can
Wheeler v. JJ Saunders [1996] -pigs not cleaned out oten =smelly , yeh planing permmision but it is still nusiance- planning perm doesnt auth permission need to change of neighbourhood in this one still same neighboureed just asked for more pig sties= nusaicne
Barr v. Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] -huge compost pile by block of house- pp?-refused it - cant just change law from 1 case-pp doesnt change unles chnages neighbourhood
Coventry v. Lawrence [2014]-improtant case -idea of prescrip - yes might had track for 50yrs person cans still sue bc loud - bc presciption has btn been nusiance for 20yrs for new p
Marcic v. Thames Water [2003]-??
defence in private nusiance is?
Prescription-(acquiescence) of 20 years use….
only for private nusiance
stuges wasnt nusiance for 20yrs
what about utility?
urtility arg- if in public community interest = give u leeway cos not just about busienss
cases for utility
Adams v. Ursell [1913- fosh adn chip everyone agreed - bestnot to damage or smells etc -Key Facts: The smell from the neighbour’s fish and chip shop was minimised but may still cause an actionable nuisance
Miller v. Jackson [1977]- cricket pitch, hits flis hosue and breaks widnows, moved this yr but cricket been there forever, if u dont lik crick dont get hosue near it,c ricket freq entered into garden - community outweighed peoples interests- dennings judgment - balancing act its abotu reaosnableness
Dennis v. MoD [2003]- low flyign area soemtimes knwocked out windows - planes cant go anywhere else need to practice here- wont give injucntion only loss of value
Watson v. Croft Promo-Sport Ltd [2009]- comprosied track days soemrhweh in middle?
DURATION cases?
De Keyser v. Royal Hotel [1914]- e.g how often in happened
Crown River Cruises v. Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd [1996]1 event not private nusiance
intention cases?
Christie v. Davey [1893]- 2 houses neighbiurs dont get on, grumpy man dont like other with musical instrument-piano teacher sued won cos it was not malicious he was dping in maliciously he retaliated = prob
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v. Emmett [1936]- loud noise startles eeat young -??
sensitivity cases?
Robinson v. Kilvert (1889)- not nuisance bc paper overly sensitive, only affect super sens= no claim
Heath v. Brighton Corporation (1908)- need reaosnableness,
McKinnon Industries v. Walker [1951] (PC)
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v. Morris (t/a Soundstar Studio) [2004]
summary of fluids?
Leading case: Coventry v. Lawrence [2014] UKSC 46
Whether the use of the land is reasonable will depend on a number of factors (FLUIDS) and will be very much a question of fact for individual cases to interpret
rylands v fletcher?
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)-Key Facts: The defendant was liable for compensating the claimant after an artificial reservoir built on the land flooded the claimant’s mine
minseshaft- said it was 1 time event -only efectd 1 person - no stat nusienace etc -so made sep
Oooops…..
“If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage.”
(Lord Cranworth) [341]
this is stricter liability- fi does escape ur liabile
cases for ryalands?
Read v. Lyons [1947]- bomb blows up needs ecape and must be brought onto land uantural use- no ryalnds but need NON NATURAL USE- DANGEROUS/HAZARDOUS
-Rigby v. CC of Northamptonshire [1985]-psychopath escapes- gas risk blow up infalm materail- so if we create danger and turns into something were liable-
AG v. Corke [1932]- dont think good law
SEEING POINT IN RYLANDS CASES
British Celanese Ltd v. AH Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd [1969]- no ry
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v. Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994]- use all nusaicnes - nothing for ry
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd – The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961]
Transco plc v. Stockport MBC [2003]-
gore- modern ry f approach on slide
summary of rylands
Leading case: Gore v. Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) [2012] EWCA Civ 1248
Non-natural use is a product of the time: it must be extraordinary / unusual
The object must now be exceptionally dangerous or mischievous
Damages for death / personal injury are not recoverable
defences?
Injunctions stoping things from happening vs Compensation money- saw in cases comp more better e.g dennis dont want injucntion cos want to keep pn practices but have comp but otehr cases we want injunction so it stps
Bone v. Seale [1975]- nusaicne of smells pig arm 12 hadf years not enouh for prescip defence but how dow e determine value
Kennaway v. Thompson [1980]
