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

0
Q

HUNTER v CANARY WHARF: Private nuisance was stratified into three sub sections, what are they?

A

Nuisance by encroachment.

By direct harm to the land.

Interference with the quiet enjoyment of the land.

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

Private nuisance is defined as what and in which case?

A

BAMFORD v TURNLEY: any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a claimants land.

Clarified in HUNTER v CANARY WHARF.

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

How is it determined if a claimant is able to sue in private nuisance/rylands?

A

MALONE v LASKEY: need a legal interest in the land.

Confirmed in Hunter: & spouses who have beneficial interest will be able to sue.

DOBSON v THAMES WATER: if no legal interest can potentially sue under HRA.

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

How do you determine if the defendant can be sued under private nuisance?

A

THOMAS v NUM: the creator of the nuisance even if not the occupier.

LEAKEY v NATIONAL TRUST: the occupier in the land. MATANIA v N.P BANK: may be liable for contractor if employed for a specific task that creates a foreseeable nuisance. OR: SEDLEIGH-DENFIELD v O’CALLAGHAN: for trespassers if they have adopted the nuisance and not steps to abate have been taken.

TETLEY v CHITTY: landlords if lease is given for the nuisance in question.

GOLDMAN v HARGRAVE: for natural nuisances if they are foreseeable and should have mitigated.

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

Under what circumstances can an occupier of land be sued for nuisance?

A

LEAKEY v NATIONAL TRUST:

MATANIA v NP BANK: liable for a contractor if employed for a specific task that creates a foreseeable nuisance.

SEDLEIGH-DENFIELD v O’CALLAGHAN: for trespassers if they have adopted the nuisance and taken no steps to abate.

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

Under what circumstances can a landlord be sued for private nuisance?

A

If the lease is granted by them for the specific nuisance in question.

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

When can a defendant be sued for natural nuisances?

A

GOLDMAN v HARGRAVE: if foreseeable and should have mitigated.

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

What are the three elements of private nuisance?

A

INDIRECT INTERFERENCE

DAMAGE

UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE

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

What has been judicially recognised as indirect interference?

A

SEDLEIGH-DENFIELD: flood of water.
BLISS v HALL: smell/fumes.
BONE v SEALE: smell from farm.
HALSEY v ESSO: vibrations and damage to clothes from acid.
SOLLOWAY v HAMPSHIRE: tree roots sucking moisture.
STURGES v BRIDGMAN: Noise.

NOT TV RECEPTION: HUNTER.

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

What was the actionable direct interference in SEDLEIGH-DENFIELD?

A

Flood of water.

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

What was the actionable direct interference in BLISS v HALL?

A

Smell/fumes.

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

What was the actionable direct interference in BONE v SEALE?

A

Smell from a farm.

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

What was the actionable direct interference in HALSEY v ESSO?

A

Vibrations and damage to clothes from acid.

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

What was the actionable direct interference in SOLLOWAY v HAMPSHIRE?

A

Tree roots sucking moisture.

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

What was the actionable direct interference in STURGES v BRIDGMAN?

A

Noise.

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

What type of damage is recoverable?

A

CAMBRIDGE WATER v EAST COUNTIES LEATHER: that which is reasonably foreseeable.

NOT PERSONAL INJURY: HUNTER.

St HELENS SMELTING v TIPPING: 2 types of recoverable damage:

PHYSICAL PROPERTY DAMAGE (as in LEMMON v WEBB: overhanging trees).

Sensible personal discomfort: SPD: Horsey & Rackey call ‘amenity damage’.

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

Which case holds that only damage that is reasonably foreseeable is recoverable?

A

CAMBRIDGE WATER v EAST COUNTIES LEATHER.

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

Which case colds you cannot claim for personal injury in nuisance?

A

HUNTER v CANARY WHARF

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

Which case distinguished between the two types of damage recoverable (SPD & physical property damage)?

A

ST HELENS SMELTING v TIPPING.

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

What does ‘unlawful interference’ mean?

A

Unreasonableness: BAMFORD v TURNLEY: a rule of give and take between neighbours; balance up factors to determine.

20
Q

What factors are relevant when considering unlawful interference?

A 
AREA/LOCALITY.
DURATION.
ABNORMAL SENSITIVITY OF PROPERTY/CLAIMANT.
PUBLIC BENEFIT.
MALICE.
MOVING TO THE NUISANCE.
21
Q

AREA/LOCALITY is relevant how?

A

ST HELENS SMELTING v TIPPING: irrelevant if property damage!

STURGES v BRIDGMAN: belgravia/bermondsey.
LAWS v FLORINPLACE: sex shop.

WHEELER v JJ SAUNDERS: planning permission doesn’t authorise a nuisance, but it may alter the character of an area: GILLINGHAM v MEDWAY. Note: WATSON v CROFT: this isnt invoked lightly.

22
Q

Which case holds that locality is irrelevant for property damage?

A

ST HELENS

23
Q

Which case holds that planning permission does not authorise a nuisance?

A

WHEELER v JJ SAUNDERS: but it may:

GILLINGHAM v MEDWAY: alter the character of an area.

Note: WATSON v CROFT.

24
Q

DURATION impacts on unlawful interference how?

A

KENNAWAY v THOMPSON: the longer it goes on for the more chance of it being a nuisance.

Contract BOLTON v STONE to CASTLE v ST AUGUSTINE (golf).

One-off events? BRITISH CELANESE: foil onto land, power-outage. SPICER v SMEE: where one event caused a long term nuisance (faulty wires).

Distinguish from CROWN RIVER CRUISES v KIMBOLTON: one off event a nuisance even if no long term issue.

25
Q

Which case holds that the longer something goes on for the more likely it is to be a nuisance?

A

KENNAWAY v THOMPSON

26
Q

BOLTON v STONE & CASTLE v ST AUGUSTINE can be contrasted to what effect?

A

Bolton: cricket balls rarely escape.
Augustine: golf balls all the time.

27
Q

What cases discuss how one-off events may be nuisances?

A

BRITISH CELANESE: foil causing power failures.
SPICER v SMEE: fire causing persistent faulty wires.

Contrast: CROWN RIVER CRUISES v KIMBOLTON: fireworks.

28
Q

ABNORMAL SENSITIVITY OF PROPERTY/CLAIMANT impacts upon unlawful interference how?

A

ROBINSON v KILVERT: heat sensitive paper; ordinary paper wouldn’t have been affected and so no nuisance.

So, unless an ordinary person is affected there is no nuisance. If, however, a reasonable person could claim then so can the abnormally sensitive one: MCKINNON v WALKER; orchids.

NETWORK RAIL v MORRIS: rail interference with electric equipment.

29
Q

ROBINSON v KILVERT holds what re: abnormal sensitivity?

A

If an ordinary person/property wouldn’t be affected then there is no nuisance.

Unless, a reasonable person could claim- then so could the abnormally sensitive one: MCKINNON v WALKER.

30
Q

How does a PUBLIC BENEFIT impact upon unlawful interference?

A

ADAMS v URSELL: public benefit doesn’t necessarily negate a nuisance, e.g. BELLOWAY v IRISH CEMENT.

But will impact upon remedy: partial rather than full injunction: KENNAWAY v THOMPSON, or else merely damages and no injunction: MILLER v JACKSON, or very rarely damages in lieu of an injunction: WATSON v CROFT.

31
Q

MALICE impacts upon unlawful interference in what way?

A

It is not necessary to prove it for a claim, but it can be influential.

Generally defeats reasonableness:

HOLLYWOOD SILVER FOX v EMMETT.
CHRISTIE v DAVEY.

32
Q

How does MOVING TO THE NUISANCE impact upon unlawful interference?

A

BLISS v HALL & STURGES v BRIDGMAN: moving to nuisance does not justify the nuisance.

33
Q

Which defences are available to a private nuisance claim?

A

PRESCRIPTION: if defendant has carried it out for 20 years and the claimant hasn’t brought an action during that time. STURGES v BRIDGMAN: only after it was an extension was it a nuisance and so the defence wasnt allowed.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: provided all due care is taken and the nuisance is an inevitable consequence. e.g. ALLEN v GULF OIL.

Note: permissions/permits are not a defence: WHEELER/BARR v BIFFA.

VOLENTI.

CONTRIB NEG.

34
Q

What remedies are available for a private nuisance claim?

A

DAMAGES: DENNIS v MOD, as of right; awarded difference in house price.

FULL OR PARTIAL INJUNCTION: KENNAWAY v THOMPSON: equitable so maxims apply.

ABATEMENT: LEMMON v WEBB.

35
Q

Who can sue for a RYLANDS v FLETCHER claim?

A

TRANSCO v STOCKPORT: same as for private law;

Creator: THOMAS v NUM
Occupier in certain circumstances: LEAKEY v NT.

36
Q

What are the required elements for a rylands claim?

A

BRINGS/ACCUMULATES SOMETHING ONTO THE LAND.
FOR MISCHIEF.
WHICH IS A NON NATURAL USE.
WHICH THEN ESCAPES.
AND THE ESCAPE CAUSING DAMAGE IS FORESEEABLE.
DAMAGE.

37
Q

The first element is that something is brought onto or accumulated on the land, which case holds this?

A

GILES v WALKER: thistles grew naturally so no tort.

38
Q

What does ‘for mischief’ mean?

A

DANGEROUS: or something non-dangerous that escapes in a way that makes it dangerous.

RAINHAM v BELVEDERE: acid.
READ v LYONS: explosives.
CAMBRIDGE WATER: chemicals in water.

39
Q

How must an ‘ESCAPE’ occur?

A

From somewhere the defendant has control to somewhere they don’t: READ v LYONS.

40
Q

What is a ‘non-natural use of the land’?

A

RICKARDS v LOVIATHAN: must be some special use bringing with it increased danger.

TRANSCO: water pipes considered ‘natural’ so rylands didnt apply.

41
Q

In what way must the damage be foreseeable for a Ryland’s claim?

A

CAMBRIDGE WATER: the escape itself need not be foreseeable, only that an escape could cause damage.

42
Q

Can personal injury be claimed for in Rylands?

A

No.

43
Q

What defences are available to a Ryland’s claim?

A

VOLENTI: can be implied if the substance accumulated for a common benefit between C & D: PETERS v PRINCE OF WALES.

CONTRIB NEG.

STAT AUTHORITY.

ACT OF STRANGER: as in RYLANDS v FLETCHER: if they had no control over the third party.

44
Q

What is the definition of public nuisance?

A

A-G v PYA QUARRIES: an act that materially affects the reasonable comfort of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects.

It is a crime but can occasionally become a tort. Most such obstructions are now governed by statute, but situations such as obstructing the highway can still fall under this banner.

Further still, can be one-off events, so long as they are material.

45
Q

When is a public nuisance claim actionable as a tort?

A

If the C suffers damage over and above other memders of the public: need special damage.

LYONS v GULLIVER: queue outside shop.
TATE LYLE v GLC: only one company affected in this specific way but successful claim because the interference impacted others in a different way.

46
Q

How big need the class of people affected?

A

A-G v HASTINGS: no exact number of people who need to be affected; facts depend on the case; can sue as an individual WITHIN a class.

47
Q

Can personal injury be recovered in public nuisance?

A

ROSE v MILES: yes, and pure economic loss.

48
Q

What case examples are there of public nuisance?

A

AG v ORANGE: pop festival.
THOMAS v NUM: picketing highway.
WANDSWORTH v TRACK: pigeons.

Tort (3 decks)

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