Nuisance Flashcards
Structure of each type of nuisance
Standing
Elements
Defences
Remedies
Economic loss
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)
Hunter v Canary Wharf
- Must have an interest in land to claim private nuisance
- Indirect interference must start on defendants land for public nuisance
Dobson v Thames
If no legal interest in land (e.g. child, then could use art 8 as a recourse)
Thomas v NUM
- Public nuisance from blocking of highway
- Creator of nuisance can be sued
Leaky v NT
- Occupier of land can be sued
Matania v Provincial bank
Independent contractors can be sued
Tetley v Chitty
Landlord can be sued
C/F - Southwark v Mills - Cannot sue landlord if they were unaware of potential nuisance. (Noisy neighbours)
Sandleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan
- Trespasser can be sued
Sturges v Bridgman
- 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
St Helens Smelting
- 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
What damage can be claimed in private nuisance?
Property - Lemmon v Webb
SPD - St Helens Smelting
Bamford v Turnely
Everyone has to tolerate a certain ammount of interference. Question of ‘give and take’. Therefore only a nuisance if unreasonable use of land
Kennaway v Thompson
- 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)
Cambridge Water v Eastern Leather
Damage must be reasonably foreseeable in Rylands and private
Laws v Florinplace
Sex shop. People can be a nuisance
Robinson v Klivert
Must come up to objective level of sensitivity
McKinnon v Walker
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)
Network Rail v Morris
Interference with recording equipment not judged to be abnormally sensitive, most people have some electrical equipment
Nor Video v Ontario
Can claim for a blocked TV signal in Canada
Bolton v Stone
6 cricket balls in 30 years was insufficent frequency for a nuisance
Castle v Golf Club
Cars frequently hit by golf balls…frequent enough for nuisance
Spicer v Smee
One off incident sufficient if it is indicative of long running issue (Wiring)
Crown Cruises v Fireworks
Firework case. One off, but property damage inevitable for sustained nuisance, therefore nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet
If nuisance performed with malice then this will be unreasonable, despite being otherwise reasaonble
Andrae v Selfridge
Lack of care will mean tort is unreasonable
Farrer v Nelson
Too many pheasants. Excessive, therefore unreasonable
Holbeck Hotel v Scarborough
Where nuisance is naturally occuring it is more likely to be reasoanble
Gillingham v Medway
The character of a neighbourhood can change
Perry v Kendrick
Act of a stranger is a full defence
Defences to private nuisance
- Prescription
- Contributory negligence
- Volenti
- Act of a stranger
Remedies for private nuisance
Damages, damages in lieu, injunction, partial injunction
Dennis v MOD
Damages in lieu
Bellew v irish Cement
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
Wheeler v JJ Saunders
Planning permission is not consent, so is not a defence to nuisance
3 elements of private nuisance
- Damage
- Indirect interference
- Unlawful use of land
Elements of a public nuisance
- Standing
- Damage
- Class of people
AG v PYA Quarries
Acts or omissions of the defendant that materially affect the reasoanble comfort and conveneice of life of a class of people
AG v Hastings
A class in no specific number. A small number of houses was insufficient
R v Rimmington
Cannot be a large number of separate issues, must be affected by the same factor
Goldstein
Closure of postal sorting office was a class
Tate and Lyle v GLC
Individual can bring a public nuisance claim if they have suffered harm above that of others. Had to dredge river due to public nuisance
Campbell v Paddington Corp
- Stand erected in front of claimants house. He had damage above that of others
- Public nuisance in blokcing the highway
Wandsworth v Network Rail
Pigeons pooing under bridge was public nuisance which was brought by local council
Damage under public nuisance
- Property damage
- PI
- Economic Loss- Rose v Miles
Pop Festival
Public nuisance due to noise. One off event but had long duration
Lions v Gulliver
Queue blocking acces to tea shop, individual claim
Rylands v Fletcher
- Established the sub-species of private tort -> Rylands v Fletcher
- Tort created by escape of large ammount of water
Elements of a Rylands v Fletcher tort
- Brings onto land
- Mischief
- Escape
- Non-natural use
Giles v Walker
- Must bring onto land cannot be naturally occuring
Transco
- Standing the same as private nuisance
- Only property damage can be claimed under rylands
Fish Guano
Can sue anyone who creates the nuisance
Rainham v Belvedere
Anything likely to do mischief e.g. acid
Read v Lyons
- Explosives are likely to do mischief
- Substance must escape land
Rickards v Lothian
- Sink resulting in flood was natural use of land so no rylands tort
Musgrove v Pandelis
Natural use of lands can change
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
Defence of mutual benefit
Dunn v Birmingham Canal
Default of claimant. Dug under canal. No claim
Defences under Rylands
- COnsent
- Mutual benefit
- Act of claiamnt
- Act of stranger
- Contrib neg
- ACt of god
R v Shorrock
Noise can be nuisance in public nuisance
What is the acronym for all the types of unlawful interference?
MENNTAL
Khorasabdijan v Bush
Requirement to have an interest not required in this case. No specific reasoning given though case involved deliberate nuisance through phone calls. Discussion point.
McKenna v British Aluminium
Children made claim for SPD. No interest in land, but claim allowed under art 8 of human rights despite lack of interest in land.
Malone v Laskey
Must have interest in land. Confirmed in hunter v canary wharf.
British celanese v hunt
Continual state of affairs will make it unreasonable.
Allen v gulf oil
Defence of statutory authority
Ponying v noakes
Default of claimant
British celanese v hunt
Private nuisance must occur more than just once
Crown river cruises v kimbolton
One off went was a private nuisance due to definite SPD and propert damage that would occur from sustained fireworks
