Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Tort > Nuisance > Flashcards

Nuisance Flashcards

1
Q

Definition of private nuisance

A

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

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

Claimant must have a legal interest in land

A

Malone v Laskey, confirmed in Hunter v Canary Wharf

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

Creator of nuisance can be sued

A

Thomas v NUM

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

Occupier of land can be sued

A

Leakey v National Trust

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

Occupier may be liable for contractors where the tasks he asks them to do cause a reasonably foreseeable and inevitable nuisance

A

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)

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

Occupier only liable for nuisance created by a trespasser if he continued or adopted the nuisance

A

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan ; Page Motors v Epsom

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

Occupier liable for failing to take reasonable steps to abate the naturally occurring nuisance that was reasonable foreseeable

A

Goldman v Hargrave

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

Occupier not expected to bankrupt himself in the process of averting a naturally occurring nuisance

A

Holbeck Hall v Scarborough

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

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

A

Tetley v Chitty

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

Council liable for gypsies as they had allowed them to stay on land

A

Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council; Page Motors v Epsom

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

Water may be indirect interference

A

Sedleigh-Denfield

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

Recovery can only be made for damage that is foreseeable

A

Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather

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

SPD and physical damage to property are recoverable in private nuisance

A

St Helen’s Smelting.

Lemmon v Webb for physical damage to property

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

Not all interference with enjoyment can be claimed - loss of TV signal

A

Hunter v Canary Wharf

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

If user is reasonable, defendant will not be liable. If user is unreasonable, D will be liable

A

Cambridge Water Company v Easter Counties Leather

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

Bamford v Turnley

A

rule of give and take, live and let live.

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

Balancing act between rights of occupier to do what he wants with land and rights of neighbour to have quiet enjoyment of land

A

Sedleigh-Denfield

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

Time and Duration of nuisance

A

Kennaway v Thompson

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

Single incident may be a nuisance if it illustrates an underlying state of affairs

A

Spicer v Smee

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

Character of neighbourhoos is only relevant to SPD (NOT physicial damage)

A

St Helen’s Smelting

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

Sturges v Bridgman

A

What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey

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

Fumes from fish and chip shop nuisance in residential area

A

Adams v Ursell

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

Sex shop in residential area was nuisance

A

Laws v Florinplace

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

Planning permission will not authorise a nuisance, but it may alter the character of the area

A

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

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

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)

A

Robinson v Kilvert

26
Q

If reasonable occupier would be affected, claimant can clam for full extent of injuries, even though these are increased by his sensitivies

A

McKinnon Industries v Walker (orchids)

27
Q

Railway signalling interfered with electric guitars in recording studio - courts should not be too strict applying abnormal sensitivity

A

Network Rail v CJ Morris

28
Q

More likely to be a nuisance if no real justification for behaviour/just to annoy claimant

A

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

29
Q

Defendant’s lack of care likely to count in claimant’s favour

A

Andrae v Selfridge

30
Q

If defendant has behaved in excessive manner, this may indicate that he is being unreasonable

A

Farrer v Nelson

31
Q

Public utility does not justify commission of a nuisance

A

Adams v Ursell; Miller v Jackson; Dennis v MOD

32
Q

Claimant can still sue for a nuisance which was present when the claimant moved to the property

A

Miller v Jackson; Sturges v Bridgman

33
Q

Prescription counts from the time that a claimant could have complained, not the time the activity started

A

Sturges v Bridgman

34
Q

Statutory Authority may be a defence if he exercised due care

A

Allen v Gulf Oil

35
Q

Damages

A

Dennis v MOD

36
Q

Damages for personal injury not recoverable

A

Hunter; Transco

37
Q

Partial injunction

A

Kennaway v Thompson

38
Q

Abatement

A

Lemmon v Webb

39
Q

HRA

A

McKenna v British Aluminium; Dobson

40
Q

Public nuisance definition

A

“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

41
Q

Effect of nuisance must be sufficiently widespread; exact number of people affected depends on facts of case

A

R v Rimmington; AG v Hastings Corporation

42
Q

Pop concert

A

AG of Ontario v Orange

43
Q

Blocking a canal

A

Rose v Miles

44
Q

Acid house party

A

R v Shorrock

45
Q

Individual claimant does not need interest in land

A

Tate and Lyle v GLC

46
Q

Pure economic loss can be recovered

A

Rose v Miles

47
Q

Rylands v Fletch

A

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

48
Q

Thistles not brought onto land; no liability

A

Giles v Walker

49
Q

Acid

A

Rainham v Belvedere

50
Q

Explosives

A

Read v Lyons

51
Q

no element of escape

A

Read v Lyons

52
Q

Rickards v Lothian

A

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

53
Q

Chemicals are classic case of non-natural user

A

Cambridge Water Company v Easter Counties Leather

54
Q

Piping domestic water was not a non-natural user

A

Transco

55
Q

Damage must be foreseeable

A

Cambridge Water Co

56
Q

Claimant must have proprietary interest

A

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

57
Q

Personal injury not recoverable in public nuisance

A

Transco; Hunter v Canary Wharf

58
Q

Defence of common benefit

A

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

59
Q

If escape wholly caused by claimant’s actions, defendant will not be liable

A

Dunn v Birmingham Canal

60
Q

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

A

Perry v Kendrick’s Transport

61
Q

Act of God defence restricted to exception situations

A

Nichols v Marsland

Tort (12 decks)

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