Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort Law > Nuisance > Flashcards

Nuisance Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Statutory nuisance

A

S.79(1) of Environmental Protection Act 1990

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Public v Private Nuisance

A

a) What constitutes nuisance
Comfort/convenience | Unreasonable use of land

b) Need to prove damage
No | Yes

c) Remedies
Criminal penalty | Civil remedy

d) Standing to sue
Only for special damage | Need proprietary interest

e) Damages recoverable
For all damage | Only damage to land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Definition of public nuisance

A

A nuisance which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life as a class of the public (AG v PYA Quarries)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Meaning of “public”

A

Widespread in range or so indiscriminate in effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings to stop it (AG v PYA Quarries)

Affects the community (R v Rimmington)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Standing to sue for public nuisance

A

No standing, unless there is special damage (Tate & Lyle Industries v Greater London Council)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Definition of private nuisance

A

Interference with the claimant’s reasonable enjoyment of his land (Coventry v Lawrence)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Types of private nuisance

A

St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping

a) Material injury to property
b) Loss of amenity/’sensible personal discomfort’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Standing to sue (personal or property tort?)

A

Khorasandjian v Bush - personal, since what is being protected is enjoyment of property

Hunter v Canary Wharf - property

Views:
Lord Goff: narrow – to avoid turning it into a tort to the person (between neighbours) (like negligence?)
Lord Cooke: broad – no reason to exclude, also note Art 8 of ECHR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Determining “unreasonable use” of land - factors

A

a) Public benefit
b) Locality
c) Sensitive claimant
d) Malice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Public benefit factor

A

Rejection of argument that where conduct is for public benefit, cannot amount to nuisance - slow to extinguish private rights (Coventry v Lawrence)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How to measure public benefit

A

Social benefit > social cost (compensation) (Bamford v Turnley)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Why not a defence?

A

If private rights are to be extinguished, Parliament must do it (obiter) (Shelfer v City of London Electric Lightning Co (No.1) )

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Locality factor

A

St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping

a) Material injury to property - locality irrelevant
b) Loss of amenity - locality relevant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Hunter v Canary Wharf

A

Challenge to the need for a distinction, since both are to do with property interests - should use the same factors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Definition of locality

A

Pattern of use rather than singular character of an area (Coventry v Lawrence)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Role of defendant’s own activities in determining locality

A

Relevant (Coventry v Lawrence)

but unlikely to be final word

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Application of locality factor

A

“What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey” (Sturges v Bridgman)

Baxter v Camden London Borough (noise in low cost/high density building)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Planning permission case law

A

Reference point to a neighbourhood with the new use (Gillingham DC v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd)

Not relevant if not a strategic planning permission (Wheeler v JJ Saunders, Watson v Croft Promosport)

REJECTION OF GILLINGHAM; planning permission does not hold much weight (Coventry v Lawrence)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Sensitivity of claimant factor

A

The more sensitive, the more likely reasonable

Reasonable use test same as ordinary use test, comparison to ordinary use rather than the specific use by claimant

Robinson v Kilvert (brown paper)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Sensitivity of claimant factor - status

A

High threshold, move towards foreseeability test instead (Network Rail v Morris)

21
Q

Malice factor

A

If malicious, more likely unreasonable

Christie v Davey (musical family
Unlawful act w ill motives)

22
Q

Exception to malice factor

A

Lawful act with ill motives may be unreasonable

Bradford Corp v Pickles, Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

23
Q

Role of negligence in nuisance

A

a) Foreseeability of damage from use of land
b) Liability for acts done by third parties
c) Liability for Acts of God

24
Q

Foreseeability of damage from use of land

A

Usually not an issue because nuisance cases would occur when the unreasonable use is ongoing, but applies to cases of past harm

25
Q

Test for foreseeability

A

Whether the kind of damage was reasonably forseeable at time of breach of duty (The Wagon Mound No. 1, Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc)

26
Q

How to determine what was reasonable for D to have done to control hazard

A

“Measured duty of care” (Anthony v Coal Authority)

a) Reasonable foreseeability of risk AND actual damage
b) Knowledge
c) Ability to abate hazard

27
Q

Liability for acts done by third parties

A 
Liability if the nuisance was 
a) continued
b) adopted 
c) D had or should have had knowledge and failed to take reasonable steps
(Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan)
28
Q

What type of steps to take to avoid liability for third party acts?

A

Reasonable steps (Lambert v Barratt Homes)

29
Q

Application of liability by occupier of land for third party acts

A

a) Liability to act positively to prevent harm - yes (Goldman v Hargraves)
b) Liability for predecessors in title - yes (Bybrooks Barn Centre v Kent County Council)
c) Liability when land is used as a base to engage in activities off defendant’s land that interfere with use - yes (Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council)
d) Isolated escape or ongoing interference which would not have been apparent to the defendant - no (Northumbrian Water v Sir Robert McAlpine)

Except for if loss of amenity (Anglian Water Services v Crawshaw Robbins & Co Ltd)

e) Landlords’ liability for acts of tenant - no (Coventry v Lawrence

Except for direct or active participation

30
Q

Liability for acts of nature

A

“Measured duty of care” (Leakey v National Trust)

No liability for damage that was vastly more extensive than what was foreseen or could have been foreseen, even if it is of the type that was foreseen (Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough Borough Council)

31
Q

Defences

A

a) Coming to the nuisance
b) Prescription
c) Statutory authority and regulatory compliance

32
Q

Coming to the nuisance defence

A

Not a defence even if they are aware (Miller v Jackson)

Not a defence even if activity only became a nuisance
due to change in use by claimant (Sturges v Bridgman)

33
Q

Prescription defence

A

Show that it has taken place for a long time + was a nuisance the whole time + earlier cause of action could have been taken earlier (Coventry v Lawrence)

Knowledge required (Liverpool Corp v Coghill & Son Ltd)

34
Q

Statutory authority and regulatory compliance defence

A

Defence if statutory authority has been granted (Geddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir, Allen v Gulf Oil Refining)

35
Q

Limitations to statutory authority and regulatory compliance defence

A

a) Human rights law

b) Planning permission under delegated powers

36
Q

Human rights exception to statutory authority and regulatory compliance defence

A

Art 8 of ECHR

  • but provision for compensation may be enough
  • use s.3 HRA 1998 to read down statute
37
Q

Planning permission exception to statutory authority and regulatory compliance defence

A

Wheeler v JJ Saunders (pig farm)
Rationale:
- statutory authority as endorsement by P, but obtaining planning permission = make lawful what would be criminal
- admin decisions are hard to challenge (JR)

Applied: Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No.3)

38
Q

Caveats to the planning permission exception

A

“Strategic planning decisions” in S.152 of Planning Act 2008 - ‘nationally significant infrastructure projects’

But compensation mechanism:
S.158 of Planning Act 2008
S.1 of Land Compensation Act 1973

39
Q

Overview of remedies available

A

a) Injunction
b) Damages
c) Both

40
Q

Availability of damages

A

Limited discretion to grant damages, injunction as de facto remedy

41
Q

Increased discretion in damages

A

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting

a) Injury to legal rights small
b) Capable of beign estimated in money
c) Can be adequately compensated by small money payment
d) Oppressive to grant injunction

42
Q

Application of damages vis-a-vis injunctions

A

a) Decreases in value of property (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
But should consider ‘actual impact’, ‘actual experiences’ (Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd)

b) In lieu of injunction, when oppressive (Jaggard v Sawyer)

43
Q

New approach to damages/injunction

A

More flexible approach to injunction, defendant has to persuade the court not to give injunction (Coventry v Lawrence)

44
Q

Rylands v Fletcher rule

A

Escape + dangerous thing + non-natural use = liability for damage to another as a result of the escape, regardless of fault

Now seen as species of nuisance (Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather)

45
Q

Non-natural use

A

Use that is out of the ordinary (Transco v Stockport MBC)

- If insurable, then not non-natural

46
Q

Dangerous things

A

Some special use brigning with it increased danger to others (Rickards v Lothian)

Exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief (Transco)

47
Q

Escape

A

Escape from a place where the defendant had occupation or control over to a place which is outside his occupation or control (Read v J Lyons & Co)

48
Q

Defences to Rylands v Fletcher

A

a) Acts of God (Tennent v Earl of Glasgow)
b) Deliberate act of 3rd party (Rickards v Lothian)
c) Statutory duty
d) Consent

49
Q

Application of Rylands to fire

A

No application, unless the fire is deliberately or negligently started on the premises (Stannard v Gore)

Tort Law (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions