Nuisance

Question 1

What is nuisance as a tort designed to do

Answer 1

To protect land and interests in land against interference both direct and substantial interference with enjoyment with land.

Question 2

What are the types of Nuisance

Answer 2

• Private
• Public
• Statutory

Question 3

What is Nuisance

Answer 3

The unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land or some right over it or in connection with it.

Question 4

When can someone bring an action in nuisance?

Answer 4

Where he or she has suffered particular harm from a nuisance which has materially affected the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a sufficiently large number of citizens.

Question 5

Elements of private Nuisance

Answer 5

• Physical injury to land
• Substantial interference with the enjoyment of land
• Encroachment on a neighbours land

Question 6

Which factors determine reasonable user?

Answer 6

• Nature of the locality
• The duration and frequency of the defendants conduct
• The utility of the defendants conduct
• Abnormal sensitivity of the claimant
• Malice on the part of the defendant.

Question 7

What is nature and locality?

Answer 7

Consideration of the nature of the nuisance and the area the nuisance takes place.

Question 8

Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham)

Answer 8

Claimants disturbed by London Docklands could not complain about the nuisance is caused because it was classified as an urban development area which changed the character of the area.

Question 9

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 9

Planning permission should not be allowed to deprive a property owner of the right to object to what otherwise would be a nuisance.

Planning permission is not defence to a nuisance - Lord Nueberger.

Question 10

Duration and Frequency

Answer 10

Courts consider what is unreasonable given that it is natural that the claimant will have to endure some inconvenience.

Question 11

Royal Hotel Ltd V Spicer Bros Ltd

Answer 11

Courts issued injunction which forbid pile driving between 10pm and 6:30 to stop the inconvenience it caused.

Question 12

Point to remember about whether damages or injunction will be awarded if a nuisance is established.

Answer 12

Where the nuisance is temporary damages are more likely to be awarded rather than an injunction

Question 13

Will an isolated escape be considered actionable in nuisance?

Answer 13

No - except during the Rylands and Flecture Rule

Question 14

Do the courts consider how useful the defendants actions are when determining reasonableness.

Answer 14

No, although it has been argued utility considerations should be relevant to court rulings.

Question 15

Abnormal Sensitivity of the claimant,

Answer 15

The result of the defendants activity must be such to unreasonably affect the ordinary citizen.

Question 16

Robinson v Kilvert

Answer 16

Claimant’s trade was exceptionally delicate: brown paper use in trade was damaged by hot air from the floor.
A Man who carries on an exceptionally delicate trade cannot complain because it is injured by a neighbour doing something lawful on his property.
Only actionable if the claimant in Robinson was able to prove that others were also affected.

Question 17

Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board. - Dismissed as out of date.

Answer 17

• Claimants had a relay system that they used to relay TV.
• Defendant erected two electivity pylons within 250 feet of the claimants relay system
• Claimant argued that the electromagnet interference was an actionable nuisance.
• No injunction was awarded because claimants business was sensitive
• Tv was only recreational and interference with this was not actionable.

Question 18

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 18

• Claims made during the construction of the wharf tower for interference with tv reception.
• The claimants could not sue for interference with their Tv signals
• As long as the defendants had abide by building law. It is just unfortunate for the claimant.
• if this claim was allowed it was expose the defendant to crushing liability.

Question 19

Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris.

Answer 19

Electromagnetic infrastructure from Railtrack signal system affected claimants
Courts ruled that the principle of sensitivity was outdated and instead the courts should apply foreseeability.
Did not matter if the claimant was the only person doing this activity if it was foreseeable the defendant will be held liable.

Question 20

Foreseeability vs Sensitivity. - Point to remember.

Answer 20

Foreseeability potentially better test because it applies a fault based concept on the defendant.

Question 21

Malice: A strong factor.

Answer 21

Malice will encourage the court to find an unreasonable user

Question 22

Christie v Davey

Answer 22

Claimant successfully claimed that defendants clattering metal trays in order to annoy the music teacher was a nuisance because it was not a legitimate use of land.
If a defendant uses malice it is more likely that their nuisance will be actionable.

Question 23

Hollywood silver fox Farm Ltd v Emmett

Answer 23

Injunction granted against a gun shooter who intentionally shot his guns in areas where it would disrupt fox breeding ground.

Question 24

Who can bring an action in private nuisance?

Answer 24

People with an interest in land or exclusive possession of the land - land owners and tenants can sue in nuisance. Simply having a license or permission to be somewhere isn’t sufficient interest in the land.
Hunter v Canary Wharf - Claimants must have had some interest In the land. Some didn’t.

Question 25

Adopting or continuing a nuisance

Answer 25

Claimant can claim for losses even if the nuisance began before their acquisition of the premises.

Question 26

Sedleigh-Denfeild v O'Callaghan.

Answer 26

If a person did not create the nuisance themselves they may still be liable for it. Defendant inherited the nuisance and made is worse . Defendant knew or ought to have known of the nuisance and then failed to take timely steps to correct it.

Question 27

Goldham v Hargrave

Answer 27

Tree struck by lighting and caught fire. The tree was cut down but left smouldering and caused a fire on the claimants land Defendant occupier was liable as risk of fire was foreseeable. Liability should be judged in accordance with their available resources otherwise the law would be unenforceable or unjust.

Question 28

Landlords retain reversionary interest over their property that is leased.

Answer 28

Landlord can only sue where the nuisance has harmed this interest in a permanent way. Nuisances can only be brought by the tenant.

Question 29

Defendants

Answer 29

Liability of the creator of the nuisance is not dependant on whether the defendant still occupies the land

Question 30

Occupier; May find himself or herself liable for nuisances occurring during period of occupancy even where they are not the creator.

Answer 30

- Occupant has control over the creator - Occupiers employees creating a nuisance - Occupier has continued a nuisance created by a trespasser - only actionable if the occupier adopts the nuisance or continues the nuisance - Sedleigh-Defnfield v O'Callaghan - Occupier has continued or adopted a nuisance created by an act of nature - Goldman v Hargrave

Question 31

How was defendants conduct judged in Goldman V Hargrave?

Answer 31

Judge in the light of his or her ability to act. The defendant would not be considered liable if they are poor and abatement will require vast expense.

Question 32

Under what conditions can the Landlord be sued

Answer 32

If he participates directly in the commission of or authorises the nuisance on their property. - Coventry v Lawrence. Where the landlord knew or ought to have known of the nuisance before letting. Landlord convented to repair or has a right to enter to repair.

Question 33

Defences - 4 points

Answer 33

Statutory authority 20 years prescription Claimant coming to the nuisance is not a defence. Act of a stranger/nature is a defence to some extent.

Question 34

Statutory authority:

Answer 34

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining - Potentially claimants could not be sued for their sued for their nuisance due to their work being authorised by a state - If there is another way of doing he work then the defendants must do the work in this way even if it is more expensive.

Question 35

20 years prescription

Answer 35

Applies to private nuisance. it is possible to acquire a right to do something after undertaking the activity for 20 years.

Question 36

Claimant coming to the nuisance is not a defence.

Answer 36

May only be a defence where the claimant has changed their land use because of this and that activity becomes a nuisance - Coventry v Lawrence.

Question 37

Human Rights

Answer 37

Marcic V thames Water utilities. | HR Rights law will provide a remedy where domestic law fails to give just satisfaction for breach of human rights.

Question 38

Remedies -

Answer 38

Injunction and Damages

Question 39

What is an injunction

Answer 39

Injunction against the defendant the defendants activity to stop them from committing further interferences. If the defendants continues they are held for contempt of court

Question 40

Dennis v Ministry of defence

Answer 40

Dennis owned land close to RAF training ground D could not develop his land and make a profit out of it as a result Court would not apply an injunction due to the public benefit but the nuisance was recognised and the court ordered damages instead.

Question 41

Kennaway Thompson

Answer 41

An injunction can be awarded on terms. Restricted the action which caused the nuisance to certain times.

Question 42

Damages: Compensation for loss of value. | Raymond v Young

Answer 42

Nuisance de valued the property and the land Damages were awarded for loss of its value Damages also awarded on compensatory grounds

Question 43

Andrea v Selfridge

Answer 43

Constructuion work become a nuisance to the claimants business Damages were awarded as plaintiff suffered an actionable nuisance to the claimants business

Question 44

Williams v Network Rail infrastructure

Answer 44

Cannot claim for pure economic loss | Damages may be awarded but not an injunction.

Question 45

Shelfer Criteria - Awarding damages instead of an injunction 4 points

Answer 45

- Injury to the claimnts legal rights is small - Damage is capable of being estimated in money - can be adequately compensated by small money payment - the case is one in which it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction

Question 46

Miler v Jackson

Answer 46

Claimant claimed that cricket game from a nearby club were nuisance. Damage awarded instead because of public interest in the game.

Question 47

Coventry v Lawrence principle

Answer 47

The supreme court considered reviews the shelfer criteria | Concluded that the criteria was too strict and the courts should be encouraged to award damages.

Question 48

What is a public nuisance.

Answer 48

Where a defendant will commit a public nuisance if he creates , authorises adopts or continues a state of affairs which unreasonably interferes with a public right or with the comfort convivence or safety of the public

Question 49

Rylands v Flecture rule

Answer 49

The person who for his own purposes keeps on his land anything which is likely to do mischief if it escapes. Defendant must keep it there at his peril and he does not do so is answerable for all damages which is the natural consequences of its escape.

Question 50

Rylands v Flecture 1866 (Industrial activity was not seen as it would be in todays society which made Rylands activity easily considered to be unnatural. )

Answer 50

Rylands owned a mill and F a nearby colliery Reservoir built on fie disused mine shafts which connected to F's colliery When the reservoir was filled with water everything collapsed and the water burst into F's colliery F succeeded in claiming damages against r Lord Cairns: Added to the criteria stating that a non natural use of the land must have been taking place.

Question 51

Modern day society - development in the case of Transco

Answer 51

Upheld the more restrictive approach: Confining the rule to exceptional circumstances were the occupier has brought something onto the land which possesses an exceptionally high risk. House of lords rejected the more generous application of the rule. Their Lordships favoured a more restrict approach.

Question 52

Which case incorporates the modern development of foreseeability in Ryland's and Flecture

Answer 52

Cambridge water v Eastern Counties Leather

Question 53

Cambridge water v Eastern Countries Leather facts

Answer 53

D operated a tennery, In doing this, D used a chemical The chemical spilt onto the floor of D's factory The chemical seemed into the ground and into the water which travelled to the claimants water supply and polluted it. It was not foreseeable that if it escaped it would travel 1.3 miles. The damage was said to not be foreseeable.

Question 54

Defences in Rylands and Fletcher - 5 points

Answer 54

``` Claimants Default Unforeseeable act of stranger Act of God Statutory Authority Consent ```

Question 55

Rhylands Defence: Claimant Default Defence Case

Answer 55

Pointing v Noakes - Plantiffs horse died when it had reached over a fence from a poisonous tree on the defendants land. It was the horses own actions led to its death.

Question 56

Rhylands Defence: Unforeseeable act of stranger - 2 cases

Answer 56

Box v Jubb - Reservoir overflowed Into neighbours land however it a 3rd party who led to the escape of the water. Perry v Kendricks Transport Petrol tank is a disused coach exploded after two boys tampered with it The occupier had no control over this event and was not liable.

Question 57

Rhylands Defence Act of God

Answer 57

Where an event occurs that no amount of human foresight could have protected against the escape

Question 58

Rhylands defence Statutory authority

Answer 58

Green v Chelsea water works - defendant who were under a statutory duty to maintain a continuous supply of water were not liable when pipe burst. Their negligence led to a flood on the plaintiffs land. But their use of land was not unnatural because it was there for ordinary purposes

Question 59

Consent

Answer 59

Consent could be either expressed or implied. Implied consent occurs when there is common benefit from maintain the thing with high risk if escapes.

Question 60

Remedies in Rhylands and Flecture.

Answer 60

- Injunctions - Abatement - Damages

Question 61

Rylands Remedies. Use of Damages

Answer 61

Damages are suitable in Ryland and Flecher liability because injunctions cannot occur where the escape and damages has already happened.

Question 62

Rhylands Remedies: use of Injunctions

Answer 62

Equitable and Discretionary remedy Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting. Where injury to the claimants legal rights is small.

Question 63

Stannard v Gore -

Answer 63

Clarified that the Transco restrict approach would not apply to cases involving fire

Question 64

Liability under the rule in Rylands v Flecture

Answer 64

- The defendant brings something onto his land for his own purposes something likely to do mischief. - If it escapes - Non-natural use of the land - Foreseeable damage

Question 65

Read v Lyons escape

Answer 65

High explosive shell exploded during the process of manufacture. Claimant was an inspector and was injured No negligence on the defendants part of the defendant because there was no escape from D's land.

Question 66

Rickards v Lothian principle

Answer 66

Non natural use must be a non natural use bringing with it an increased danger.

Question 67

Non natural use: Transco plc V Stockport

Answer 67

Defendant had a large water-main supplying a tower block of housing, The claimant had a gas pipe nearby. Transcos pipes burst and the claimant had to do urgent repairs to stop the gas pipe from cracking. Held this wasn't an unnatural use because bringing water onto the land was for ordinary purposes. High threshold for establishing 'non natural' Lord Hoffman - the claimant could not have been expected to insure against it.

Question 68

Who can be sued

Answer 68

The defendant who occupied the dangerous thing will be liable they do not need to of had an interest in the land. Ryland's and Flecture - Cant claim for personal injury as it is a tort that protects the land so only people with interests in the land could claim.

Question 69

Defences to Ryland's and flecture 2

Answer 69

Statutory authority | No action will lie if escape occurs from Act of God or third parties.

Question 70

Rylands and Flecture defence Perry and Kendrick's

Answer 70

Petrol tanks accumulated by defendants. Petrol tank in coaches exploded after two boys tampered with it the occupier had no control over this event and was held not to be liable.

Question 71

Rickards v Lothian

Answer 71

Claimant was the tenant on the 2nd floor of the building Top floor tap left on maliciously by third party which caused damage to claimants stock. Defendant not liable because the act must have been unforeseeable.