Nuisance Flashcards
Adams v Ursell
Ratio: The public utility of a defendant’s actions will never in themselves prevent an activity being unreasonable, but may help turn the tide in narrowly balanced cases. The context of the location should be considered.
Facts: Local residents complained about the smell of a fish and chip shop in a residential area.
AG of Ontario v Orange
Ratio: Example of a public nuisance.
Facts: A music festival was found to be a public nuisance.
AG v Cory Bros
Ratio: Colliery spoil is likely to do mischief if it escapes and so can be subject to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
AG v Hastings
Ratio: There is no specific number of people needed to form a class. It will be decided based on the facts of the case.
Facts: A small group of 3 or 4 households was not sufficiently large to form a ‘class’ of subjects.
AG v PYA Quarries
Ratio: Public Nuisance - ‘an unlawful act or omission which materially affects the reasonable comfort or convenience of a class of her Majesty’s subjects’.
Facts: A quarry was sued in public nuisance for emitting large amounts of dust.
Allen v Gulf Oil
Ratio: Statutory authority is a full defence to nuisance as long as the defendant has exercised full care and the nuisance is an inevitable result of the authorised activity.
Facts: The claimant claimed in nuisance in respect of the smell and noise emanating from an oil refinery. Its operation had been authorised by statute.
Bamford v Turnley
Ratio: Private nuisance - ‘any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a claimant’s land, or his enjoyment of that land’.
Facts: The defendant was burning a brick kiln to build a house. The kiln released toxic fumes which made the servants and neighbours ill.
Bellew v Irish Cement
Ratio: Public utility is a weak defence to stronger claims of unreasonable interference.
Facts: A cement factory, which was the only operational one in Ireland at a time when cement was urgently needed, was shit down after a claim was brought in nuisance.
Bolton v Stone
Ratio: Private nuisance must be in some way continuous. Generally, isolated incidents are not actionable.
Facts: A cricket ball was hit out of the ground and injured the claimant. Balls had only escaped six times in thirty years.
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
Ratio: 1. Damage must be reasonably foreseeable to be claimed for in private nuisance. 2. Chemicals are an example of something likely to do mischief if they escape. 3. Damage claimed for under Rylands v Fletcher must be reasonably foreseeable if the substance was to escape.
Castle v St Augustine’s Links
Ratio: For a nuisance to be actionable, it must be sufficiently continuous.
Facts: Golf balls frequently escaped the club and hit the road. On this occasion one hit a taxi driver, blinding him
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks
Ratio: Where fire or massive property damage is involved, there is an exception to the requirement for nuisance to be continuous.
Facts: A fireworks display set fire to a barge, causing substantial damage.
Dennis v MoD
Ratio: Where a nuisance is unpreventable, damages may be awarded in place of an injunction.
Facts: The owner of a large country house sued in nuisance in respect of a noisy RAF training field near her house. National security took precedence and she was awarded £950,000 in damages, to reflect the depreciation in the value of the house, instead of an injunction.
Dunn v Birmingham Canal
Ratio: There will be no liability under Rylands v Fletcher where the damage is caused purely by the claimant.
Facts: The claimant dug a mine below the canal that the defendant was responsible for, causing a flood.
Farrer v Nelson
Ratio: An unusual or excessive act can be unreasonable interference.
Facts: The defendant brought 100s of pheasants onto his land which damaged the neighbours’ crops.
Giles v Walker
Ratio: For the purpose of Rylands v Fletcher, the defendant must have brought something onto his land, it cannot be naturally occurring.
Facts: Thistle seeds damaged neighbouring land. The defendant had not brought the thistles onto the land and so there could be no liability.
Gilingham BC v Medway Dock
Ratio: Planning permission will not automatically validate a nuisance. However, the character of the neighbourhood after planning permission has been granted should be considered.
Facts: Planning permission obtained allowed the defendant to develop a commercial port operating day and night. The claimant argued that the residential nature of the area made this a nuisance. On the facts, the area had changed sufficiently as a result of the planning permission for there to be no nuisance by the time permission was granted.
Goldman v Hargrave
Ratio: If a defendant knows about a danger and does not act to prevent foreseeable damage, he will be liable.
Facts: The defendant had the opportunity to put out a fire that broke out after a tree on his land was struck by lightning. He did not act and so was liable for damage to the neighbour’s property.
Halsey v Esso Petroleum
Ratio: Example of indirect interference.
Facts: Noise, smell and acid came from the defendant’s land onto the claimant’s land. It damaged the claimant’s clothes and printed him from sleeping.
Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough Borough Council
Ratio: Where the cost of subduing the risk to the land from natural events is too high, the occupier will not be liable for failing to protect the land.
Facts: A large land slip near a cliff-top hotel caused the hotel to become unsafe, meaning it had to be demolished. The defendant brought a claim against the council who owned the land which had collapsed. The claim was unsuccessful due to the high cost of preventing the risk.
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
Ratio: Actions performed out of malice are almost certain to be considered unreasonable interference.
Facts: The defendant repeatedly fired guns near the fence on his land intending to scare the foxes his neighbours bred. This caused them to miscarry and so was property damage.
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Ratio: 1. Confirmed that a proprietary interest is required fro a claim in private nuisance. 2. It is not possible to claim for personal injury under the tort of private nuisance.
facts: The claimants argued that the erection of the Canary Wharf Tower was a nuisance because it interfered with their TV signal.
Kennaway v Thompson
Ratio: 1. Unlawful interference is judged by an objective standard and is a question of ‘give and take’. 2. The court can order partial injunctions where appropriate.
Facts: The defendant carried out a noisy boat race. Due to the public utility of the race, only a partial injunction was granted, limiting the hours of the event.
Leakey v National Trust
Ratio: The occupier of the land from where the nuisance originated can be sued even if they did not create the nuisance if they are aware of it and fail to act.
Facts: A large landslide damaged the claimant’s house. Minor naturally occurring landslides had happened previously and the defendant had known about them.
Lyons v Gulliver
Ratio: An example of special damage being suffered over and above the damage to the class - more serious damage.
Facts: The queue for a theatre caused a nuisance to people on the street, preventing access to one shop in particular.
Malone v Laskey
Ratio: The claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land to be able to sue in private nuisance.
Facts: Vibration from a nearby property caused an injury when a shelf came loose. The claimant did not have a proprietary interest in the property and her claim failed.
Mantania v National Provincial Bank
Ratio: Where a nuisance is caused by a contractor, the contractor will be liable, rather than the occupier, unless it is a foreseeable result of what they were asked to do by the occupier.
Facts: Structural alterations were carried out to a first floor, meaning the leaseholder on the second floor was unable to use it for its intended purpose of providing singing lessons.
McKinnon v Walker
Ratio: If objects of normal sensitive are damaged as well as those of abnormal sensitivity, a defendant will be liable.
Facts: Valuable and fragile orchids were damaged by smoke and fumes from a nearby metal plant. Ordinary plants would also have been damaged.
Morris v Network Rail
Ratio: If an object is abnormally sensitive the nuisance-maker will not be liable for damage caused.
Facts: New signals installed at a railway station near a recording studio caused interference with the recording equipment. Held that the equipment was abnormally sensitive.
Nichols v Marsland
Ratio: An ‘act of God’ can prevent liability under Rylands v Fletcher.
Facts: Water features on the defendant’s land flooded in exceptionally heavy rain, causing damage to the neighbouring field.
Page Motors v Epson Borough Council
Ratio: If a defendant adopts or permits the nuisance he can be liable for it.
Facts: Gypsies moved onto land neighbouring the claimant’s business, causing a number of nuisances. The council were held liable for the trespassers as they had adopted them by not enforcing an order for possession of the land.
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
Ratio: Where the claimant gains a benefit from the substance, the defendant may not be liable if it escapes.
Facts: The leaseholder of a shop was aware of a sprinkler system installed to protect the building, and particularly the theatre elsewhere in the building, from fire. That sprinkler system burst and caused damage to the shop. The leaseholder unsuccessfully attempted to sue under Rylands v Fletcher - he had benefitted too.
R v Shorrock
Ratio: A defendant will be liable for a nuisance created by a third party if they knew, or reasonably ought to have known about it.
Facts: The defendants leased their land to a group of people allegedly for a charity fundraiser but actually for an illegal rave. It was held that they should have realised what was going on.
Rainham Chemicals v Belvedere
Ratio: Acid is an example of something likely to do mischief if it escapes.
Facts: An acid manufacturer caused a large explosion by storing two chemicals next to each other.
Read v Lyons
Ratio: 1. Explosives are likely to do mischief if they escape. 2. The substance must escape.
Facts: An explosion at a munitions factory caused injury to the claimant. However, the explosion happened on the defendant’s land and so the thing had not escaped.
Rickards v Lothian
Ratio: Established the definition of non-natural use: ‘some special use bringing with it increased risk to others’.
Robinson v Kilvet
Ratio: Abnormal sensitivity can prevent a claim in nuisance where the activity complained of would not interfere with a normal occupier.
Facts: The claimant claimed in nuisance when his specialist paper was damaged by heat. Normal paper would not have been damaged.
Rose v Miles
Ratio: 1. Damage in public nuisance can include pure economic loss. 2. An example of a public nuisance with special damage above that suffered by the defined class.
Facts: A canal was blocked after a barge got stuck across it. The claimant was forced to spend extra money moving the goods by land instead of water. Therefore he suffered special damage.
Rylands v Fletcher
Ratio: Established the definition for the tort of Rylands v Fletcher - ‘where the defendant brings onto his land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, he is liable for any foreseeable damage caused by the escape of that non-natural use on the claimant’s land’.
Southport Corporation v Esso
Ratio: Pollution is an example of a public nuisance.
Facts: A ship dumped oil into an estuary after being grounded. Some of it affected the claimant’s land.
St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping
Ratio: 1. Established the distinction between property damage and ‘sensible personal discomfort’ in private nuisance. 2. Defined SPD as anything that affects the senses or the nerves. 3. When there is property damage, the location, time and duration are irrelevant.
Facts: Fumes from the smelting work had damaged crops and trees on the claimant’s land.
Sturges v Bridgman
ratio: 1. Example of indirect interference. 2. Moving to the nuisance does not prevent the claimant bringing a claim in nuisance. 3. For prescription to apply, there must have been 20 years without complaint from the specific claimant, not just 20 ear generally.
Facts: A sweet factory, which had been in operation for over 20 years, created noise and vibrations. The claimant moved in next door and opened a medical practice. He complained of the nuisance.
Tate and Lyle v GLC
Ratio: An example of special damage - different type of damage.
Facts: Construction of ferry terminals led to a built up of silt on the Thames which caused a public nuisance and prevented the claimant from using their jetty.
Tetley v Chitty
Ratio: A landlord can be liable for a nuisance where he has created or authorised it.
Facts: A landlord authorised the use of this land for go-karting.
Thomas v NUM
Ratio: The creator of the nuisance, even if not an occupier, can be sued in nuisance.
Facts: Picketers shouting at miners were considered a nuisance even though they were not occupiers of the land.
Transco v Stockport MBC
Ratio: Established that the tort of Rylands v Fletcher is a type of private nuisance, no proprietary interest required and cannot claim for PI.
Facts: A leak developed int he defendant’s pipes, causing damage to the claimant’s gas main.
Wandsworth LBC v Railtrack
Ratio: Example of a public nuisance affecting the comfort of pedestrians under a bridge. If action can be taken to prevent a foreseeable nuisance it should be, or the owner of the land may be liable.
Facts: The council knew about the issues being caused by pigeons but did not act.
Wheeler v JJ Saunders
Ratio: Planning permission does not count as statutory authority but can change the nature of the land.
Facts: A pig farm had been granted planning permission.
