Nuisance A01

Question 1

introduction- interference can be indirect

Answer 1

Halsey v Esso petroleum

Question 2

introduction- physical damage is likely to be a nuisance

Answer 2

St Helens v Tipping

Question 3

introduction- there is no claim for personal injury

Answer 3

Malone v Laskey

Question 4

Claimant- members of family cannot claim if they dont have an ‘interest’

Answer 4

Hunter v Canary wharf

Question 5

Defendant- could be a local authority

Answer 5

Tetley v Chitty

Question 6

Defendant- can be liable if did not create nuisance but fail to deal with it e.g trespasser/previous owner

Answer 6

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

Question 7

Defendant- nuisance could also be from natural causes

Answer 7

Leakey v National trust

Question 8

Unlawful = Hunter v Canary wharf

Answer 8

loss of tv reception was not unlawful as it interefered with recreational uses

Question 9

Unlawful- Thompson-Schwab v Costaki

Answer 9

Running a brothel was seen to be a nuisance/unlawful

Question 10

Reasonableness — locality

Answer 10

Kennaway v Thompson

Question 11

Kennaway v Thompson =

Answer 11

house near the lake and boat club events increased- character of neighbourhood changed from noise

Question 12

Reasonableness — sensitivity of the claimant

Answer 12

Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris

Question 13

Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris =

Answer 13

unsuccessful- not foreseeable that new track circuit would interfere with guitar amps

Question 14

Reasonableness — Malice

Answer 14

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

Question 15

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett =

Answer 15

successful- shot guns at his property= deliberately harmful