Nuisance Flashcards
What is private nuisance?
An indirect and unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, coming from neighbouring land?
What are the 3 elements to private nuisance?
- The interference with land must be indirect
- The interference with land must be unlawful
- C must be able to sue D
What is an indirect interference?
Physical damage or non-physical damage, that makes it physically unpleasant to be on the land.
What are the 2 cases for physical damage?
Davey v Harrow Corporation - C’s house was damaged by roots from trees on D’s land.
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan - C’s house was damaged after a heavy storm caused a flood on D’s land (from a pipe implemented by the council).
What are the 2 cases for non-physical damage?
Christie v Davey - C was a music teacher who lived in a semi-detached house. D was fed up with the noise and began banging on the walls and shouting.
Wheeler v JJ Saunders - C owned a farm and let D build 2 buildings on the farm. D built them 11 metres away from C’s house, causing C to complain about noise and smell.
What is the principle from Hasley v Esso Petroleum?
Physical damage will always be an interference and, as long as the non-physical damage makes it physically unpleasant to be on the land, non-physical damage will be an interference too.
What is the principle from Thompson-Schwab v Costaki?
Causing emotional distress is enough to count as an interference.
When will non-physical damage not count as an interference and which cases apply?
If D affects a ‘recreational activity’ or ‘things of delight’
Bland v Moseley - blocking a view is not an interference, just a ‘thing of delight’
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd - loss of a TV signal is not an interference it is a ‘recreational activity’
What is a continuing interference?
Where a natural hazard develops and D fails to take precautions to stop it interfering with other land.
Leakey v National Trust - although D did not cause the landslide, he did not do anything to stop it.
What is meant by unlawful interference?
‘Unreasonable’ use of land
What is the principle from Southwark London Borough Council v Mills?
There must be some give and take with our neighbours, and unreasonable use is only what goes beyond acceptable behaviour.
What are the 5 factors courts consider when deciding if there was unreasonable use of land?
- Sensitivity of C
- Locality
- Duration
- Malice
- Social Benefit
What is sensitivity of C?
Whether C has only suffered due to some ‘abnormal sensitivity’ or if the interference was foreseeable.
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. v Morris - The court should consider if it was reasonably foreseeable that D’s use would cause the damage to C.
What is locality?
What is reasonable based on the are where the land is situated - looking at the character of the neighbourhood?
Sturges v Bridgeman - What is reasonable for an area depends on its character and make-up
St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping Ltd - The unreasonableness of D’s act should be based on what is expected of that particular area, but physical damage always makes it unreasonable.
What is duration?
When and how long the interference happens for and how long it lasts.
Hasley v Esso Petroleum - What is reasonable at one time of day may not be reasonable at another time.
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd - A temporary interference can be unreasonable if it is severe enough.
