Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Tort - Exam cards > Nuisance > Flashcards

Nuisance Flashcards

1
Q

Structure of each type of nuisance

A

Standing
Elements
Defences
Remedies

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

Economic loss

A

Spartan Steel;

  • Can claim for consequential economic loss (loss of profit after damage)
  • Cannot claim for pure economic loss (loss of profit where there is no damage)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Hunter v Canary Wharf

A
  • Must have an interest in land to claim private nuisance

- Indirect interference must start on defendants land for public nuisance

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

Dobson v Thames

A

If no legal interest in land (e.g. child, then could use art 8 as a recourse)

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

Thomas v NUM

A
  • Public nuisance from blocking of highway

- Creator of nuisance can be sued

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

Leaky v NT

A
  • Occupier of land can be sued
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Matania v Provincial bank

A

Independent contractors can be sued

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

Tetley v Chitty

A

Landlord can be sued

C/F - Southwark v Mills - Cannot sue landlord if they were unaware of potential nuisance. (Noisy neighbours)

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

Sandleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

A
  • Trespasser can be sued
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Sturges v Bridgman

A
  • Moving to nuisance is a potential defence, but will not work
  • Noise is indirect interference
  • Character of neighbourhood is a factor in whether the interference is unreasonable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

St Helens Smelting

A
  • Fumes are indirect interference
  • Where there is actual damage there is a low standard for a successful claim in nuisance
  • Where there is physical damage to the property the character of the neighbourhood is no longer a relevant factor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What damage can be claimed in private nuisance?

A

Property - Lemmon v Webb

SPD - St Helens Smelting

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

Bamford v Turnely

A

Everyone has to tolerate a certain ammount of interference. Question of ‘give and take’. Therefore only a nuisance if unreasonable use of land

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

Kennaway v Thompson

A
  • Duration and timing of the nuisance is a factor in reasonableness
  • Where a nusiance has a public benefit a partial injunction may be granted (Speed boats on lake Windermere)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Cambridge Water v Eastern Leather

A

Damage must be reasonably foreseeable in Rylands and private

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

Laws v Florinplace

A

Sex shop. People can be a nuisance

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

Robinson v Klivert

A

Must come up to objective level of sensitivity

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

McKinnon v Walker

A

If reasonable man would be affected, but claimant is affected more than this, then can claim for full extent of damage (Orchids v other flowers)

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

Network Rail v Morris

A

Interference with recording equipment not judged to be abnormally sensitive, most people have some electrical equipment

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

Nor Video v Ontario

A

Can claim for a blocked TV signal in Canada

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

Bolton v Stone

A

6 cricket balls in 30 years was insufficent frequency for a nuisance

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

Castle v Golf Club

A

Cars frequently hit by golf balls…frequent enough for nuisance

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

Spicer v Smee

A

One off incident sufficient if it is indicative of long running issue (Wiring)

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

Crown Cruises v Fireworks

A

Firework case. One off, but property damage inevitable for sustained nuisance, therefore nuisance

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

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet

A

If nuisance performed with malice then this will be unreasonable, despite being otherwise reasaonble

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

Andrae v Selfridge

A

Lack of care will mean tort is unreasonable

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

Farrer v Nelson

A

Too many pheasants. Excessive, therefore unreasonable

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

Holbeck Hotel v Scarborough

A

Where nuisance is naturally occuring it is more likely to be reasoanble

29
Q

Gillingham v Medway

A

The character of a neighbourhood can change

30
Q

Perry v Kendrick

A

Act of a stranger is a full defence

31
Q

Defences to private nuisance

A
  • Prescription
  • Contributory negligence
  • Volenti
  • Act of a stranger
32
Q

Remedies for private nuisance

A

Damages, damages in lieu, injunction, partial injunction

33
Q

Dennis v MOD

A

Damages in lieu

34
Q

Bellew v irish Cement

A

Public benefit can be used as a defence to private nuisance, but it will rarely work. Only possible effect is that it may mean a partial injunction is granted or claimant may recieve damages in lieu of injunction

35
Q

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

A

Planning permission is not consent, so is not a defence to nuisance

36
Q

3 elements of private nuisance

A
  • Damage
  • Indirect interference
  • Unlawful use of land
37
Q

Elements of a public nuisance

A
  • Standing
  • Damage
  • Class of people
38
Q

AG v PYA Quarries

A

Acts or omissions of the defendant that materially affect the reasoanble comfort and conveneice of life of a class of people

39
Q

AG v Hastings

A

A class in no specific number. A small number of houses was insufficient

40
Q

R v Rimmington

A

Cannot be a large number of separate issues, must be affected by the same factor

41
Q

Goldstein

A

Closure of postal sorting office was a class

42
Q

Tate and Lyle v GLC

A

Individual can bring a public nuisance claim if they have suffered harm above that of others. Had to dredge river due to public nuisance

43
Q

Campbell v Paddington Corp

A
  • Stand erected in front of claimants house. He had damage above that of others
  • Public nuisance in blokcing the highway
44
Q

Wandsworth v Network Rail

A

Pigeons pooing under bridge was public nuisance which was brought by local council

45
Q

Damage under public nuisance

A
  • Property damage
  • PI
  • Economic Loss- Rose v Miles
46
Q

Pop Festival

A

Public nuisance due to noise. One off event but had long duration

47
Q

Lions v Gulliver

A

Queue blocking acces to tea shop, individual claim

48
Q

Rylands v Fletcher

A
  • Established the sub-species of private tort -> Rylands v Fletcher
  • Tort created by escape of large ammount of water
49
Q

Elements of a Rylands v Fletcher tort

A
  • Brings onto land
  • Mischief
  • Escape
  • Non-natural use
50
Q

Giles v Walker

A
  • Must bring onto land cannot be naturally occuring
51
Q

Transco

A
  • Standing the same as private nuisance

- Only property damage can be claimed under rylands

52
Q

Fish Guano

A

Can sue anyone who creates the nuisance

53
Q

Rainham v Belvedere

A

Anything likely to do mischief e.g. acid

54
Q

Read v Lyons

A
  • Explosives are likely to do mischief

- Substance must escape land

55
Q

Rickards v Lothian

A
  • Sink resulting in flood was natural use of land so no rylands tort
56
Q

Musgrove v Pandelis

A

Natural use of lands can change

57
Q

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

A

Defence of mutual benefit

58
Q

Dunn v Birmingham Canal

A

Default of claimant. Dug under canal. No claim

59
Q

Defences under Rylands

A
  • COnsent
  • Mutual benefit
  • Act of claiamnt
  • Act of stranger
  • Contrib neg
  • ACt of god
60
Q

R v Shorrock

A

Noise can be nuisance in public nuisance

61
Q

What is the acronym for all the types of unlawful interference?

A

MENNTAL

62
Q

Khorasabdijan v Bush

A

Requirement to have an interest not required in this case. No specific reasoning given though case involved deliberate nuisance through phone calls. Discussion point.

63
Q

McKenna v British Aluminium

A

Children made claim for SPD. No interest in land, but claim allowed under art 8 of human rights despite lack of interest in land.

64
Q

Malone v Laskey

A

Must have interest in land. Confirmed in hunter v canary wharf.

65
Q

British celanese v hunt

A

Continual state of affairs will make it unreasonable.

66
Q

Allen v gulf oil

A

Defence of statutory authority

67
Q

Ponying v noakes

A

Default of claimant

68
Q

British celanese v hunt

A

Private nuisance must occur more than just once

69
Q

Crown river cruises v kimbolton

A

One off went was a private nuisance due to definite SPD and propert damage that would occur from sustained fireworks

Tort - Exam cards (5 decks)

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