Nuisance Flashcards

Question

(13) Defences Statutory authority

Answer 1

Activities of D fall within statutory provisions are deemed to be authorised by parliament and cannot be challenged by courts Allen v gulf - private ace of parliament authorised D's activities Held - D had statutory authority to perform function that was creating nuisance Department of transport - carry explicit 'nuisance clause' which will not excuse common law nuisances arising out of the application of their provisions Metropolitan asylum - HL: if D has to the option to act without causing a nuisance but does so anyway it is unlikely that any statutory provisions will function as defence

Answer 2

if D can show the nuisance has been interfering with C for more than 20 years - this is a valid defence Sturges V Bridgman - D owned sweet factory for over 20 years, doctor ran surgery next door and expanded. the vibration from factory caused nuisance D argued that it had been occurring for more than 20 years Court disagreed it was only since extension that vibrations became a nuisance that had not been happening for 20 years

Answer 3

If D takes reasonable steps to avoid causing nuisance then this may operate as a defence

Answer 4

Occupier will only be liable for nuisance stemming from a strangers actions where he knowingly or negligently continues the nuisance SEDLEIGH

Answer 5

applies where D is unaware of the state of affairs that might amount to nuisance and could not reasonably be expected to know if it ILFORD UDC V BEAL

Answer 6

It doesn't matter if C came into nuisance Bliss v Hall - D ran candle factory that gave off bad smells. there was no defence on the basis that C moved in nearby long after operation begun Coventry - court: nuisance arises cause. C has in somehow changed the used of his/her land and a result expercienes nuisance - then this defence will work Fleming v Hislop: Ld Halsbury - whether man came to nuisance or nuisance came to him rights are the same

Answer 7

not a defence to argue D's conduct is beneficial to public at large Adams v urself - D ran chip shop in residential area and it caused nuisance - there was no defence for D to argue shop provided value to community Dennis v Ministry - no defence to argue that a noisy Air Force base was useful because it was necessary for the purpose of national security

Answer 8

not a defence that D was one of many parties contributing to nuisance Lambton - C Brough injunction against 2 defendants both operated merry go rounds. by themselves noise was not unreasonable but together noise was maddening - defendants argued that in insolation they did nothing wrong - court disagreed with this agreement and said that was no defence they were both deemed nuisances

Answer 9

No defence to argue a third party has a better title to the land than the claimant - D cannot say that it wasn't them someone else has a better claim NICHOLLS V ELY BEET SUGAR

Answer 10

exist with courts discretion they can grant order that would stop nuisance occuring court may grant interim relief - used to stop action the same day - American Cyanamid

Answer 11

Shelfer : set out 4 reasons why - where injury to claimants rights is small - where injury is capable of being estimated in monetary terms - where injury can be adequately compensated by a small money payment - where it would be oppressive to D to grant an injunction Coventry v Lawrence - SC doubts the criteria - approach should be entirely discretionary - court explains damages might be better remedy for the C in the public interest because induction could leas to business shut down forever Pieres - induction would stop training school from operating - court said damages were more appropriate because induction would put them out of business for good which is very harsh remedy

Answer 12

form of self-help generally reserved for enroachment cases (Lemon v Webb)

Answer 13

compensate the diminution of value - they don't compensate for personal injury (Hunter v canary Wharf) Damage may be awarded for damage to C clothes - Halsey v Esso - emissions from oil refinery damaged laundry - C could recover damages for lost clothes

Answer 14

In order for claimant to succeed he or she must belong to class of her majesty subject and must show special damage - Attorney General v PYA R v Rimmington; Goldstein - HL says a section of community must be affected not merely selected individuals - R: D sent 500 racially abusive letters to people around the country - G: D sent an envelope containing salt to a friend - defendants were not found guilty of public nuisance because a selection of the community needed to be affected not selected individuals - both cases people were singled out it has to go beyond that - D must have known that public nuisance would occur as result of his actions

Answer 15

Must be a member of the affected class - AG v PYA Local authority can bring an action on behalf of the public under section 222 of local government act Claimant does not need to have interest in land - Color Quest Corby group - CA held claimants can claim damages personal injury in public nuisance

Answer 16

Occupier will be liable for loss, injury, damages caused by natural projections on the highway Noble v Harrison - court held that D could be liable if he knows or should have known about the circumstances which caused the injury

Answer 17

Occupier is responsible for keeping property in good repair, whether he knows of damage or not Tarry - Wringe -

Answer 18

Same remedies a private nuisance damages more likely to be awarded given that public nuisance actions require that the claimant suffers special damage - Corby group