Nuisance Flashcards
What three types of nuisance are there?
- Private Nuisance
- Public Nuisance
- Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Private nuisance is not actionable per se. What must the claimant prove before making use of the action?
They suffered actual physical damage or ‘sensible personal discomfort’.
Which case gives us the definition of private nuisance?
Bamford v Turnley (1862)
How is private nuisance defined?
‘…any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a plaintiff’s land or his use or enjoyment of that land.’
Who can bring a claim for private nuisance?
A person who has proprietary or possessionary interest in land.
Why could the claimant not sue in Malone v Laskey?
Mrs. Malone was a wife and back in those days wives didn’t have legal interest.
Which two cases confirm that only persons with a legal interest in land can sue?
Hunter v Canary Wharf and Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Which three kinds of persons can be sued? Give an authority for each one.
- Creator of damage (Thomas v NUM)
- Occupier of land (Leakey v National Trust)
- Landlord (Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council)
An occupier will not be held liable for a nuisance emanating from their land if it was caused by whom?
- Independent contractors
- Predecessors in title
- Trespassers
- Naturally occurring nuisances or natural condition of land
Why is the judgment in Matania v National Provincial Bank considered rare?
The occupier was held liable for foreseeable noise and dust caused by contracted-out building work. Generally people are expected to put up with building works.
Which case shows that an occupier may be liable for a nuisance even if he hadn’t created it but had continued or adopted it?
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan
In the Australian case of Goldman v Hargrave, despite the general rule, the occupier was found liable for a naturally occurring nuisance - a fire caused by lightening that struck a gum tree on the defendant’s land - but why?
The occupier knew or ought to have known of the danger and taken reasonable steps to abate it.
Which case decided that an occupier shouldn’t go so far out of his way such as to bankrupt himself to abate a nuisance?
Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough Borough Council
In Leakey v National Trust the defendants were held liable for a landslip damaging the plaintiff’s land. In Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough, the defendants were not. Give three reasons why?
- The measured duty of care depended on foreseeability. The scale of the landslip was not foreseen.
- The duty only extended to forewarning the landowner not carrying out preventative works
- It would be unreasonable and unfair to expect the defendant to be liable where the plaintiff also knew of the danger.
In which of the two cases - Lippiatt v Gloucestershire BC or Hussain v Lancaster CC - was the defendant held liable for the unlawful activity committed by their tenants?
Lippiatt v Gloucestershire BC
What did Hussain claim Lancaster CC were liable for? Why weren’t they liable?
Hussain argued the council had not carried out their equal opportunities policy in allowing their tenants to racially harass, but the court held LCC had not authorised racial behaviour and it was not fair, just and reasonable to hold them liable when they had acted reasonably.
What are the three elements of private nuisance?
- Indirect interference
- Damage
- Unlawful interference