Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Tort Law Jaden > Nuisance > Flashcards

Nuisance Flashcards

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

What is nuisance as a tort designed to do

A

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

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

What are the types of Nuisance

A
  • Private
  • Public
  • Statutory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is Nuisance

A

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

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

When can someone bring an action in nuisance?

A

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.

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

Elements of private Nuisance

A
  • Physical injury to land
  • Substantial interference with the enjoyment of land
  • Encroachment on a neighbours land
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Which factors determine reasonable user?

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

What is nature and locality?

A

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

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

Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham)

A

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.

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

Coventry v Lawrence

A

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.

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

Duration and Frequency

A

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

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

Royal Hotel Ltd V Spicer Bros Ltd

A

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

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

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

A

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

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

Will an isolated escape be considered actionable in nuisance?

A

No - except during the Rylands and Flecture Rule

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

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

A

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

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

Abnormal Sensitivity of the claimant,

A

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

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

Robinson v Kilvert

A

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.

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

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

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

Hunter v Canary Wharf

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

Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris.

A

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.

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

Foreseeability vs Sensitivity. - Point to remember.

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Malice: A strong factor.

A

Malice will encourage the court to find an unreasonable user

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Christie v Davey

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Hollywood silver fox Farm Ltd v Emmett

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Who can bring an action in private nuisance?

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Adopting or continuing a nuisance

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Sedleigh-Denfeild v O’Callaghan.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Goldham v Hargrave

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Landlords retain reversionary interest over their property that is leased.

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Defendants

A

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

30
Q

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

A
  • 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
31
Q

How was defendants conduct judged in Goldman V Hargrave?

A

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.

32
Q

Under what conditions can the Landlord be sued

A

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.

33
Q

Defences - 4 points

A

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.

34
Q

Statutory authority:

A

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.
35
Q

20 years prescription

A

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

36
Q

Claimant coming to the nuisance is not a defence.

A

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.

37
Q

Human Rights

A

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.

38
Q

Remedies -

A

Injunction and Damages

39
Q

What is an injunction

A

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

40
Q

Dennis v Ministry of defence

A

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.

41
Q

Kennaway Thompson

A

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

42
Q

Damages: Compensation for loss of value.

Raymond v Young

A

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

43
Q

Andrea v Selfridge

A

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

44
Q

Williams v Network Rail infrastructure

A

Cannot claim for pure economic loss

Damages may be awarded but not an injunction.

45
Q

Shelfer Criteria - Awarding damages instead of an injunction 4 points

A
  • 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
46
Q

Miler v Jackson

A

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

47
Q

Coventry v Lawrence principle

A

The supreme court considered reviews the shelfer criteria

Concluded that the criteria was too strict and the courts should be encouraged to award damages.

48
Q

What is a public nuisance.

A

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

49
Q

Rylands v Flecture rule

A

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.

50
Q

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. )

A

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.

51
Q

Modern day society - development in the case of Transco

A

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.

52
Q

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

A

Cambridge water v Eastern Counties Leather

53
Q

Cambridge water v Eastern Countries Leather facts

A

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.

54
Q

Defences in Rylands and Fletcher - 5 points

A 
Claimants Default 
Unforeseeable act of stranger 
Act of God
Statutory Authority 
Consent
55
Q

Rhylands Defence: Claimant Default Defence Case

A

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.

56
Q

Rhylands Defence: Unforeseeable act of stranger - 2 cases

A

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.

57
Q

Rhylands Defence Act of God

A

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

58
Q

Rhylands defence Statutory authority

A

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

59
Q

Consent

A

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

60
Q

Remedies in Rhylands and Flecture.

A
  • Injunctions
  • Abatement
  • Damages
61
Q

Rylands Remedies. Use of Damages

A

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

62
Q

Rhylands Remedies: use of Injunctions

A

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

63
Q

Stannard v Gore -

A

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

64
Q

Liability under the rule in Rylands v Flecture

A
  • 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
65
Q

Read v Lyons escape

A

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.

66
Q

Rickards v Lothian principle

A

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

67
Q

Non natural use: Transco plc V Stockport

A

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.

68
Q

Who can be sued

A

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.

69
Q

Defences to Ryland’s and flecture 2

A

Statutory authority

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

70
Q

Rylands and Flecture defence Perry and Kendrick’s

A

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.

71
Q

Rickards v Lothian

A

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.

Tort Law Jaden (7 decks)

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