Nuisance (cases)

Question 1

PVN St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping (1865)

Answer 1

Main point : distinction btw nuisance causing personal discomfort and physical damage

Summary : A brought estate in manufacturing neighbourhood. vapours from works of copper smelting company damaged trees on A’s estate, trial judge drew distinction btw nuisance causing material injury to property and intangible personal discomfort

=> HL confirmed distinction and found D lb in nuisance

Question 2

PVN Bradford Corporation v Pickles (1895)

Answer 2

Main point: motive of an act is irrelevant in pv N (/!\ ≠ Silver Fox)

Summary : C sought to restrain Mr Pickles (D) from sinking a shaft into his land – D’s objective being to divert water away from C’s land

=> HL held in favour of D: D had right to do that on his land, his unpleasant motive was irrelevant

Question 3

PVN Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)

Answer 3

Main point: Malicious intent / motive can be taken into acc when considering whether an act amounts to a nuisance – and make an otherwise legal act actionable

Summary : P’s business = breeding silver foxes – vixens esp sensitive during breeding season – D = neighbour maliciously caused his son to discharge guns close to breeding pens, to mess w/ breeding of the foxes and injure P

=> Court found that P was entitled to an injunction, despite the fact that shooting on his own land was otherwise legal

Question 4

PVN Halsey v Esso (1961)

Answer 4

Main point : time is relevant to whether use / interference is unreasonable + enough that interference is ‘attributable to D’s use of the land’ (tankers technically noisy on the road, not only D’s land)

Summary : C owned house near D’s oil depot : noisy boilers emitting acid smoke, which damaged C’s washing and car + noise at night from oil tankers coming & going

=> HC held that D was lb in nuisance for (i) the noise of the boilers and tankers at night, (ii) smell emanating from the boilers, and (iii) the damage to C’s washing and car – awarded damages + injunction to restrain tankers at night

Question 5

PVN The Wagon Mound nº1

Answer 5

Main point : injury must be reasonably foreseeable to recover damages in nuisance (not just in occupier cases)

Summary : oil was spilt in harbour from The Wagon Mound (boat) bcs carelessness of engineers, the oil caught fire and damaged C’s vessels => C sued D (charterers of TWM) in nuisance and negligence

=> PC held in favour of C : injury must be reasonably foreseeable to recover damages in nuisance, and on the facts it was (to someone w/ knowledge of chief engineer who failed to act to remove the oil)

Question 6

PVN Miller v Jackson (1977)

Answer 6

Main point : the court must take pbc interest into account when excercising its discretion to grant an injunction for nuisance

Summary : D = local cricket club, C owned house on adjoining land, several cricket balls escaped and damaged C’s house => C sued in nuisance and sought injunction

=> CA held that D lb in nuisance (no df that cricket club was there before C) but refused to grant injunction (bcs cricket in pbc interest), C got damages instead

Question 7

PVN Allen v Gulf Oil

Answer 7

Main point = no lb in nuisance for smth which is the inevitable csq of an activity authorised by statute

Summary : D company given statutory permission to build oil refinery near a village, C = inhabitant of it sued in nuisance for noise, vibrations & smells emanating from factory

=> HL held that D not lb bcs nuisance = unavoidable csq of activity authorised by statute

Question 8

PVN & RvF : Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)

Answer 8

Main point = reasonable foreseeability of damage = prerequisite to grant damages in nuisance

Summary: D used chemicals for their trade (tanning), repeated small spillage caused accumulation under the land => chemicals got into C’s water supply several miles away and polluted it

=> HL held in favour of D bcs foreseeability of damage = prerequisite for damages (≠ injunction) in nuisance & RvF and C had failed to show damage to their water supply was forseeable

Question 9

PVN Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 9

Main point: only those w/ interest in land can sue in nuisance + interference w/ TV signal not actionable damage in nuisance

Summary : P claimed damages ag in D in nuisance & negligence for interference w/ their TV signal caused by tall building built by D => HL held in favour of D: a building’s presence (not an activity) interfering with reception of TV signals is not an actionable nuisance + P, as licencee, did not have standing to sue

Question 10

PVN Southwark LBC v Mills

Answer 10

Main point : ordinary use of residential premises not in itself a nuisance + possible for landlord to be lb for tenant’s nuisance if authorised it

Summary : C’s = tenants living in council property, complained about noise caused by neighbour’s daily activities (bcs lack of sound insulation)

=> HL held in favour of D bcs ordinary reasonable use of residential premises not an actionable nuisance

Question 11

PVN Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 11

Main points: grant of planning permission doesn’t by itself legalise nuisance (but can justify damages instead of injuction)

Summary: D = operator (and lessee) of car racing stadium, built w/ planning permission, C = buyer of cottage nearby complained of noise, D ag that planning permission authorised activity + C came to the nuisance

=> SC held in favour of C: coming to the nuisance not a defence and planning permission alone did no make the nuisance lawful – but granted damages in lieu of injunction

Question 12

PVN Network Rail Infrastructure v Williams (2018)

Answer 12

Main point: increased diff / cost in dvp land = loss of amenity actionable in pv nuisance

Summary: C owned residential properties adjacent to D’s land, on which there was a large amount of Japanese knotweed, which encroached on C’s land => C sought damages in nuisance

=> CA held that mere presence of knotweed did constitute an actionable nuisance (without proof of further damage) bcs loss of amenity: imposed burden on C = increased diff & cost to dvp the land

Question 13

Fearn v Board of Trustees (2023)

Answer 13

Main point: lots of ppl looking & taking photos from viewing platform overlooking D’s flat = actionable nuisance

Summary: C owned flat adjacent to D’s art gallery, pt of which offered panoramic view of London (so ppl took lots of phots) but overlooked living areas of C’s flat  C sued in nuisance, ag that viewing unreasonably interfered w/ their enjoyment of the flat (privacy)

=> SC held in favour of C:
- mere overlooking not nuisance but visual intrusion here was
- viewing and taking photos from D’s land interfered substantially w/ C’s enjoyment of flat
- operating pbc viewing gallery not an ordinary use of land  nuisance
- fact that D only making reasonable use of land or activity was for pbc benefit not a defence

Question 14

PVN Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)

Answer 14

main point: occ of land can be lb despite not creating a nuisance, if continues or adopts it

Situation : D = occ of land w/ a ditch in which a trespasser placed a pipe for carrying off rain water – D not aware + did not consent, but later became aware and used the pipe. Pipe overflowed onto C’s land and caused damage during thunderstorm

=> HL held that D lb bcs had ‘adopted’ and ‘continued’ the nuisance, despite not creating it

Question 15

PVN Leakey v National Trust (1980)

Answer 15

Main point: An occupier of land is under a duty to neighbours in relation to hazards occurring on his land, whether natural or man-made  Duty = take reasonable steps to prevent / minimise risk of injury or damage to neighbour & his property which the occupier knew or ought to have known of

Summary: C’s house built below large mound = pt of D’s land, instability of which created risk (which D knew of) for C’s house – D failed to do anything when large crack opened, when landslide occurred C sued in nuisance

=> court found D lb : owed duty of care to take reasonable steps to minimise risk which he knew of

Question 16

PVN Cocking v Eacott (2016)

Answer 16

Main points:
* Landlords lb for nuisance if participated in commission or authorised it
* occupier lb even if he had not directly caused it, provided he had continued or adopted the nuisance (by failing to abate it)
* licensor = occupier  can be lb under Sedleigh-Denfield

Question 17

PVN Lipiatt v Gloucestershire Council (1999)

Answer 17

Main point: nuisance doesn’t have to be committed on D’s land, enough that D’s land used as a ‘base’ for it

Summary: C = tenant farmer of land by a road, ‘owned’ by D council  travellers = licencees of D often trespassed onto C’s land and damaged it (leaving rubbish, dogs scaring sheep, damaging stone walls or crops..)

=> CA held that D lb in nuisance for activities of travellers bcs ‘emanated’ from his land

Question 18

RvF Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 18

Main point :
* If O of land brings smth which is dangerous / may become mischievous if it escapes, and is not naturally there, on his land, and the thing in fact escapes, he is lb for any damage it may do
* But O of land is not (without more / fault) resp for mischief caused by ordinary use of land

Summary: C = occupier of mines, D = O of land adjoining that under which the mines were, employed competent ppl to build reservoir – mines connected to old passages, out of use and partially filled w/ soil – D’s employees didn’t take any care to block them  mines flooded when water was introduced into the reservoir

=> HL held in favour of C, D lb to pay damages

Question 19

RvF Perry v Kendricks

Answer 19

Main point: occ is not lb under R v F if escape is caused by act of stranger, unless could have reasonably anticipated it and guarded against it

Summary: children climbed into D’s land, lit a match and dropped it in petrol tank of D’s motor => explosion

=> CA held that D not lb bcs C didn’t show P should have reasonably anticipated and guarded ag children’s act

Question 20

RvF Transco Plc v Stockport MBC (2003)

Answer 20

Main point : expenses incurred to avoid damage from escape recoverable under R v F + non natural use = ‘extraordinary or unusual’

Summary : D council owned broken pipe, water leaking from it washed away soil and left C’s gas main unsupported = serious risk of fracture => C sued D in R v F to recover cost of work to remedy that

=> HL held that D not lb, bcs piping water to meet resident’s land = natural use of land

Question 21

PBN Wringe v Cohen

Answer 21

Main point: if premises on a highway become dangerous bcs want of repair, collapse and injure passer by or adjoining O, the Oc or O of the premises (if has undertaken duty to repair) is answerable (lb in pbc N) whether he knew or ought to have known of the danger or not

Question 22

PBN AG v PYA Quarries (1957)

Answer 22

Main point: pbc nuisance = any nuisance which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the public – whether sufficient number = Q of fact

Summary : D = quarry O, activities caused stones & splinters to be projected + dust and vibrations
=> AG sued for pbc nuisance – HL found D lb and granted AG injunction

Question 23

PBN Tate & Lyle v GLC (1983)

Answer 23

Main point: indiv who suffers particular damage from pbc nuisance is entitled to bring an action

Summary : Cs operated sugar refinery on bank of river, got licence from D to build jetties and channel to give access to large vessels – D constructed 2 new ferry terminals which blocked channel + caused accumulation of sand around C’s jetties

Question 24

PBN Corby Group Litigation v Corby BC (2008)

Answer 24

Main point : damages for personal injury are recoverable in pbc nuisance (≠ pv)

Situation : Cs = 18ppl born w/ deformities due to exposure of their mothers to toxic materials in course of D local authority decontamination process of land near where mothers lived

=> CA held that Cs could recover damages for PI in pbc N

Question 25

Trespass Bernstein v Skyviews

Answer 25

Main point: O’s rights to airspace above land restricted to “such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it”

**Summary ** : D flew over C’s land to take areal photo of C’s country house (then tried to sell it to C) => C sued D in trespass

=> HC held in favour of D : O’s right to airspace lim to such right as necessary for ordinary use & enjoyment of it

Question 26

Trespass League Against Cruel Sports v Scott (1986)

Answer 26

Summary: C company owned bits of unfenced land, over which it did not allow hunting bcs sanctuary for animals, local hunt (led by D) encroached on the land several times => C sought injunction ag D

=> HL held in favour of C : master of hunt vic lb for entries of the hounds and hunt followers over C’s land, where negligently failed to prevent them from entering

Question 27

Trespass Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett (1995)

Answer 27

Main point: the landlord of residential property can recover damages from a trespasser who has wrongfully used his property whether or not he can show that he would have let the property to anybody else, and whether or not he would have used the property himself

= D lb for damages in trespass (reasonable rent) even if didn’t get any benefit from use of property

Summary: C = lessee of 30 apt in hotel complex, evicted by D = hotel operator, who used apt as pt of hotel (40% avg occupancy) for 16y, until C obtained order for possession and recovered apt – sought damages = mesne profits, dispute abt calculation

=> PC held that C was entitled to recover reasonable rent for entire trespass period, wether or not D had actually derived any benefit from use of the property

Question 28

Trespass Monsanto Plc v Tilly (1999)

Answer 28

Summary : C company dvp GM crops, D = members of evmt gp campaigning ag GM crops entered C’s field and uprooted some crops as symbolic gesture, C sued D in trespass, D ag that trespass was necessary in pbc interest

=> HL held in favour of C: indiv has no right to trespass on / damage another’s property except in v limited circumstances (emergency / immediate danger)  definitely not to attract publicity or gov’s attention