Nuisance Flashcards
Definition of private nuisance
Bamford v Turnley: any continuous activity or state of affairs causing substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff’s land or his use or enjoyment of that land
Claimant must have a legal interest in land
Malone v Laskey, confirmed in Hunter v Canary Wharf
Creator of nuisance can be sued
Thomas v NUM
Occupier of land can be sued
Leakey v National Trust
Occupier may be liable for contractors where the tasks he asks them to do cause a reasonably foreseeable and inevitable nuisance
Matania (though surprising that building work formed private nuisance - people expected to put up with a certain amount of give and take - Bamford v Turnley)
Occupier only liable for nuisance created by a trespasser if he continued or adopted the nuisance
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan ; Page Motors v Epsom
Occupier liable for failing to take reasonable steps to abate the naturally occurring nuisance that was reasonable foreseeable
Goldman v Hargrave
Occupier not expected to bankrupt himself in the process of averting a naturally occurring nuisance
Holbeck Hall v Scarborough
Landlord not liable unless he created it, authorised it or knew/ought to have known of the nuisance at the time of letting the property
Tetley v Chitty
Council liable for gypsies as they had allowed them to stay on land
Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council; Page Motors v Epsom
Water may be indirect interference
Sedleigh-Denfield
Recovery can only be made for damage that is foreseeable
Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather
SPD and physical damage to property are recoverable in private nuisance
St Helen’s Smelting.
Lemmon v Webb for physical damage to property
Not all interference with enjoyment can be claimed - loss of TV signal
Hunter v Canary Wharf
If user is reasonable, defendant will not be liable. If user is unreasonable, D will be liable
Cambridge Water Company v Easter Counties Leather
Bamford v Turnley
rule of give and take, live and let live.
Balancing act between rights of occupier to do what he wants with land and rights of neighbour to have quiet enjoyment of land
Sedleigh-Denfield
Time and Duration of nuisance
Kennaway v Thompson
Single incident may be a nuisance if it illustrates an underlying state of affairs
Spicer v Smee
Character of neighbourhoos is only relevant to SPD (NOT physicial damage)
St Helen’s Smelting
Sturges v Bridgman
What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey
Fumes from fish and chip shop nuisance in residential area
Adams v Ursell
Sex shop in residential area was nuisance
Laws v Florinplace
Planning permission will not authorise a nuisance, but it may alter the character of the area
Wheeler v JJ Saunders
Claimant who is abnormally sensitive cannot claim the activities that would not affect the ordinary occupier are a nuisance to him alone (heat sensitive paper)
Robinson v Kilvert
If reasonable occupier would be affected, claimant can clam for full extent of injuries, even though these are increased by his sensitivies
McKinnon Industries v Walker (orchids)
Railway signalling interfered with electric guitars in recording studio - courts should not be too strict applying abnormal sensitivity
Network Rail v CJ Morris
More likely to be a nuisance if no real justification for behaviour/just to annoy claimant
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
Defendant’s lack of care likely to count in claimant’s favour
Andrae v Selfridge
If defendant has behaved in excessive manner, this may indicate that he is being unreasonable
Farrer v Nelson
Public utility does not justify commission of a nuisance
Adams v Ursell; Miller v Jackson; Dennis v MOD
Claimant can still sue for a nuisance which was present when the claimant moved to the property
Miller v Jackson; Sturges v Bridgman
Prescription counts from the time that a claimant could have complained, not the time the activity started
Sturges v Bridgman
Statutory Authority may be a defence if he exercised due care
Allen v Gulf Oil
Damages
Dennis v MOD
Damages for personal injury not recoverable
Hunter; Transco
Partial injunction
Kennaway v Thompson
Abatement
Lemmon v Webb
HRA
McKenna v British Aluminium; Dobson
Public nuisance definition
“acts or omissions of the defendant that materially affects the comfort and convenience of life of a class of HM’s subjects” Attorney General v PYA Quarries
Effect of nuisance must be sufficiently widespread; exact number of people affected depends on facts of case
R v Rimmington; AG v Hastings Corporation
Pop concert
AG of Ontario v Orange
Blocking a canal
Rose v Miles
Acid house party
R v Shorrock
Individual claimant does not need interest in land
Tate and Lyle v GLC
Pure economic loss can be recovered
Rose v Miles
Rylands v Fletch
the person who for his own purpose brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril
Thistles not brought onto land; no liability
Giles v Walker
Acid
Rainham v Belvedere
Explosives
Read v Lyons
no element of escape
Read v Lyons
Rickards v Lothian
Non-natural user = some special use bringin with it increased danger to others; not merely the ordinary use of the land or use as is proper for general benefit of community
Chemicals are classic case of non-natural user
Cambridge Water Company v Easter Counties Leather
Piping domestic water was not a non-natural user
Transco
Damage must be foreseeable
Cambridge Water Co
Claimant must have proprietary interest
suggested in Read v Lyons; in light of Cambridge Water Co it appears Rylands is a branch of private nuisance
Following Hunter v Canary Wharf, proprietary interest is necessary
Personal injury not recoverable in public nuisance
Transco; Hunter v Canary Wharf
Defence of common benefit
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
If escape wholly caused by claimant’s actions, defendant will not be liable
Dunn v Birmingham Canal
Defendant will escape liability if situation arose through the unforeseeable act of a stranger over whom he had no control. Only if defendant was not negligent
Perry v Kendrick’s Transport
Act of God defence restricted to exception situations
Nichols v Marsland
