Nuisance and Trespass to land Flashcards
Nuisance
Nuisance consists of an act or omission which amounts to an unreasonable
interference with, or disturbance or annoyance of, another person in the exercise of his rights as defined in Connolly v South of Ireland Asphalt co
Like all torts, to constitute a nuisance the Plaintiff must be able to demonstrate a causal connection between the conduct of the defendant and the damage or interference they suffered.
Ommisions
generally revolves around a failure to alleviate the effects of natural hazards,
or risks created by third parties, or deteriorating property.
Public nuisance
A public nuisance is a criminal offence and includes conduct such as creating an obstruction on a roadway.
The tort / crime occurs when a persons acts or omissions ‘injure the reasonable comfort and convenience of the public or a section of the public’.
AG brings the action
what are the facts of Mullan v Forrester? - Public nuisance
In Mullan v Forrester the plaintiff sustained personal injury when a wall fell onto a public roadway and injured him. The Court awarded special damages pertaining to the public nuisance because while most other road users had suffered an inconvenience, the plaintiff had sustained distinct personal injury.
what are some types of public nuisance
exposing a person suffering from an infectious disease onto a public street or holding a concert that generates an excessive degree of noise or traffic congestion.
A more recent example is found in respect of outdoor music concerts when the noise levels exceeds that which is permitted in environmental law
obstructions and Cunningham v McGrath Brothers
the defendants left a ladder in the street leaning
against the wall of their property when it fell injuring a passer by. The Court found that in interpreting public nuisance, any obstruction of a public roadway is a public nuisance.
This thinking has been modified somewhat by subsequent decisions and the general rule today is that a wide range of everyday activities on public roadways do not amount to public nuisances, for example parking vehicles at the doors of shops and warehouses for the purpose of loading
and unloading are acceptable practices so long as they are not unreasonably interfering with public access to premises.
The Courts have tended to decide that obstructions that are unreasonable are actionable as public nuisances.
Obstructions and Cunningham v McGrath Brothers
the defendants left a ladder in the street leaning
against the wall of their property when it fell injuring a passer by. The Court found that in interpreting public nuisance, any obstruction of a public roadway is a public nuisance.
This thinking has been modified somewhat by subsequent decisions and the general rule today is that a wide range of everyday activities on public roadways do not amount to public nuisances, for example parking vehicles at the doors of shops and warehouses for the purpose of loading
and unloading are acceptable practices so long as they are not unreasonably interfering with public access to premises.
The Courts have tended to decide that obstructions that are unreasonable are actionable as
public nuisances.
Dangers
A public nuisance also arises where the Defendant commits an act or omission that makes a roadway unsafe or dangerous to the public.
Examples would include leaving an unauthorised no parking notice on a footpath, placing dangerous materials on or near a roadway
(eg rubble outside a skip) or digging an unauthorised trench and leaving it exposed to passers by.
Private nuisance
The law of private nuisance protects persons from unreasonable invasion of rights
related to the ownership or occupation of land. Therefore any person in lawful possession or
occupation may sue for private nuisance, and any person who creates the nuisance may be sued
private nuisance definition
[Private nuisance] at least in the vast majority of cases, are interferences for a substantial length
of time by owners or occupiers of property with the use or enjoyment of neighbouring property.
what makes private nuisance difference to other areas of tort?
Unlike other areas of tort such as trespass to land, private nuisance is not actionable per se.
As such, proof of actual damaged must be demonstrated by a plaintiff in order to succeed in
their action. The damage can be a physical injury to the land or a substantial interference with the enjoyment of that land, or an interference with servitudes.
what are the facts of St.Helens Smelting Co. v Tipping?
In St. Helens Smelting Co. v Tipping damage to trees and shrubs, caused by fumes from the defendants copper smelting plant was held to be sufficient material damage to constitute private nuisance because they were part of the plaintiff’s property and the plaintiff was entitled to enjoy her garden including the flowers and shrubs therein.
what are the facts of Halpin v Tara Mines Ltd?
In Halpin v Tara Mines Ltd the court held that cracks in the plaintiff’s property which were shown to be caused due to vibrations created by the defendant’s blasting activity would suffice to be actionable as a private nuisance provided a plaintiff could prove the causal link to the defendant’s mining activities.
what are the facts of Halsey v Esso?
In Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. the court held that damage to the plaintiff’s laundry while it was hanging out to dry which was caused by fumes from the defendant’s plant amounted to sufficient harm even though it could easily be remedied (by washing it again). The court was of the opinion that it is not the significance of the harm that makes the act a nuisance but rather the fact that the defendant’s actions interfere with a right enjoyed by the plaintiff.
substantial interference with the Use & enjoyment of Land
In determining what is reasonable the courts take account of both the utility of the defendant’s conduct and the gravity of the harm resulting or likely to result from it.
Essentially this is a balancing process where competing rights are weighed and considered for their relative social value.
what are the facts of O’kane v Campbell?
The court granted an injunction restraining a corner shop from trading throughout the night on a residential street where a number of elderly people were living. In prohibiting the activity as nuisance, the Court felt that ‘elderly people sleep more lightly than young people and they are entitled to their nights sleep and as such the shop would cause them to be disturbed in the right to quiet peaceful use and enjoyment of their property.
in determining reasonableness, what factors are taken into account
A. Nature of locality B. purpose of the defendants conduct C. The duration of the interference D. The sensitivity of the parties E. social utility of the conduct in question
Nature of locality - nusaince
Local conditions are often taken into consideration in determining whether the intrusion in question was reasonable. For example, the level of noise or the quality of air that can reasonably be expected in the City centre will differ between that expected in the quiet suburbs.
what are the facts of christie v Davey? - purpose of the defendants conduct
The plaintiff was a music teacher, with a musical family, and the sound generated in her house could be heard in the defendant’s adjoining house. The defendant took
offence to the sound and wrote a letter of complaint to the plaintiff. When this brought no respite he resorted to making noise himself by banging on a variety of implements about his
house, in order to annoy the plaintiff. The Court held that the intent of the defendant to annoy the plaintiff was a crucial factor and awarded an injunction preventing him from making further noise. The Court conceded that if the defendant had generated the noise innocently then no
action for nuisance would exist, but as he had generated it maliciously it was actionable.
The duration of the interference and Leeman v Montagu
As a general rule, the longer the interference the more likely it will be found to be considered unreasonable.
In Leeman v Montagu the defendants owned chickens and cockerels who were in the habit of crowing loudly for hours, usually starting at 2am.
The plaintiffs lived in a residential area adjacent to the defendant’s property and sued in nuisance. The court held
that as the animals created the noise for up to five hours a day and that it was at such an
unreasonable hour they granted an injunction against the defendant.
What are the facts of Bolten v Stone? The duration of the interference
the plaintiffs lived in a property opposite a cricket pitch. During a game a cricket ball was hit outside the boundary and flew Into their property causing damage. The evidence was that this had happened six times in the preceding thirty years.
However the court held that it was not so regular as to be a nuisance and the social utility of having a sporting club
in a community outweighed any potential nuisance that the balls could cause.
The sensitivity of the parties
It would appear that if the plaintiff is a person who is overly concerned or hyper-sensitive about activities that would constitute a nuisance or disturbance to them, the courts will view such persons/ cases with caution.
what are the facts of Robinson v Kilvert
In Robinson v
Kilvert, the plaintiff rented a commercial unit above the defendants to store paper. When the defendant heated his unit, the heat rising through the floors caused the plaintiff’s paper to become discolored.
The evidence showed that the paper in question was particularly sensitive
to heat of any kind but that the defendants had only used low level heat in their premises. In
dismissing the claim for nuisance the court held that the defendant had not acted unreasonable and the damage or interference with the plaintiff’s rights had been caused by the particular
nature and sensitivity of the paper in question.
The social utility of the conduct in question
Where the defendant’s actions were done in furtherance of some greater public good,
the courts have been reluctant to hold that the actions constitute nuisance.
