Nusiance Flashcards
Three forms of nuisance
1) Statutory nuisance
2) Public nuisance
3) Private nuisance - focus of course
Environmental Protection Act 1990, ss.79-80
Introduced the concept of statutory nuisance - s.79(1) sets out the list of scenarios which may give rise to statutory nuisance, e.g.:
- smoke emissions causing nuisance
- any premises that causes nuisance
Corby Group v Corby BC
Although public nuisance claims are usually brought by the AG, if a claimant or group of claimants is more adversely affected by the public nuisance, they can bring a claim themselves against D for damages
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Private nuisance is a tort against LAND - the essence of the tort is protecting property rights. Therefore, the children and spouses could not bring claims - only those with an interest in land can bring a claim in nuisance
Hunter v Canary Wharf - Reasonable User
Basic test for private nuisance is whether the interference of C’s enjoyment of land is unreasonable, as judged by the standard of the ordinary, reasonable person
St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping
Nature of the locality is only taken into account where the nuisance causes solely personal discomfort - so not relevant where the nuisance just causes damage to land
Sturges v Bridgman
The standard that a reasonable person is entitled to expect in a quiet residential area is different to the standard in a loud industrial area - so what constitutes a nuisance in Belgrave Square would likely not constitute a nuisance in Bermondsey
Coventry v Lawrence
When determining the nature of the locality, the court should look at the pattern of general use in the locality (i.e. whether the pattern is residential or industrial)
Coming to the Nuisance
Possible suggested defence where the nuisance already existed, and C then comes to the area - suggestion is that this should constitute a defence to the nuisance
Sturges v Bridgman
Which individual owned the land first is not relevant to nuisance claims - suggested that no defence of coming to the nuisance
Miller v Jackson
Also suggested that there is no coming to the nuisance defence - C was able to claim for nuisance even though the cricket club had been there for over 100 years, and C’s house had only been built recently
Robinson v Kilvert
Traditional rule is that if C has a more sensitive use for their land than the ordinary user would, this was NOT relevant for nuisance claims - C does not have a different standard
Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris
If it is reasonably foreseeable that D’s conduct might have a more adverse affect on C’s enjoyment/use of their land due to a particular sensitivity, then D might be liable for private nuisance.
But in this case it was not foreseeable that there would be a recording studio interfered with by the network signals, so D was not liable
Christie v Davey
The purpose for which the interference is caused IS relevant in determining whether D is liable for private nuisance - malicious interferences with C’s land are more likely to constitute private nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
Even if D’s conduct would not ordinarily have amounted to nuisance, if they have a malign motive then they may be liable
Bradford Crop v Pickles
D diverted reservoir river in order to benefit himself in a land purchase deal, and was not liable for nuisance caused by this - so if D seeks to profit from potentially using his land in a way that is more likely to cause a nuisance, he is not necessarily liable
Bamford v Turnley
Simply because D’s activity provides some form of public benefit does not mean that D is absolved of liability for private nuisance
Dennis v MoD
But, public benefit IS relevant for the remedy awarded for public nuisance - court awarded damages instead of injunction because although RAF practice flights did cause nuisance, it was a valuable public activity
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining
Where statutory authority grants permission for a particular activity, and private nuisance is inevitable in carrying out the work under it, then D is NOT liable
Coventry v Lawrence
SC majority held that planning permission is generally NOT relevant in assessing the nature of the locality - so the court needs to consider the nature of the locality irrespective of the way in which planning permission might change it.
Lord Neuberger said that generally PP is not relevant at all for the locality, except where PP set out certain conditions for the work which were then breached - may be relevant here.
Lord Carnwarth dissented and argued that some planning permissions are of strategic importance and therefore they cannot be sensibly ignored when taking into account the nature of the locality.
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan
D can be liable for adopting a nuisance where they did not directly cause it themselves, but they were aware of it and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it
Leakey v National Trust
Even if the nuisance arises naturally (e.g. landslide), D can still be liable for adopting the nuisance if it arises on their land and they do NOT take reasonable steps to prevent it
Coventry v Lawrence
Landlords are generally NOT liable for private nuisance caused by tenants, subject to two exceptions:
1) When the landlord participated in the nuisance
2) When it was a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY that the tenant would cause a nuisance, but the landlord still let it to them anyway
Hussain v Lancaster City Council
D is generally not liable for the actions of individuals living or acting on their land, because nuisance is a tort against LAND - the harassment by the tenants did not relate to their use of the land
Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council
Council was liable for nuisance caused by gypsy travellers residing on their land. Distinction between this case and Hussain is that Hussain is a landlord-tenant situation, so liability for the council is very confined (see only two exceptions in Coventry v Lawrence)
St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping
Strict liability for nuisance, in general
Goldman v Hargrave
But, there must be fault for adopting a nuisance - C must fail to take reasonable steps to prevent the nuisance from occuring
Shelfer v City of London
Injunctions are the primary remedy for private nuisance. Damages should only be awarded in lieu of injunctions if the following 4 criteria are met (the Shelfer criteria):
1) Injury to C’s rights is small
2) Injury capable of being estimated in money
3) Injury can be adequately compensated by payment
4) Oppressive to grant an injunction against D
Kennaway v Thompson
Injunctions are an equitable discretionary remedy which seek to balance the rights between C and D. So in this case the court awarded an injunction which limited D to only the main boating events each year
Miller v Jackson - Damages
Shelfer criteria is only used as a guide now - not strictly followed.
Court awarded damages in lieu of an injunction because the cricket club had existed long before C acquired an interest in the newly built property, and the cricket club was an important part of the local community. Again, shows that remedies for injunctions seek to balance rights between C and D
Delaware Mansions v Westminster City Council
C can recover damages for remedial work (i.e. to fix property) as well as for the loss of value in land due to a private nuisance
The Wagon Mound (No 2)
Remoteness also applies to private nuisance in the same way that it does to negligence - damages are only recoverable which are reasonably foreseeable (objective test)
Rylands v Fletcher
This is essentially a separate tort under the scope of private nuisance.
Four elements to a claim under R v F
1) Dangerous thing
2) Dangerous thing “not naturally there”/on D’s land
3) Escape of the dangerous thing
4) Damage to C’s land
Rylands v Fletcher - Dangerous Thing
Dangerous thing = something liable to cause damage or mischief if it escapes from C’s land. This is very broad and easy for C to satisfy
Winfield v Jolowicz
Court listed a number of examples that constitute a dangerous thing under RvF, e.g.
- explosions
- fire
- gas leaks
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
Chemical substance is a classic example of non-natural use of the land - it is a dangerous thing which is not likely to be there naturally
Transco v Stockport Metropolitan BC
HL affirmed Lord Moulton’s formulation in Rickards v Lothian that non-natural use of land = special used bringing with it increased danger to others
Read v J Lyons - Escape
Viscount Simon said that for the purposes of R v F, “escape” means escape from a place where D has occupation of/control over, to a place which is outside of his occupation and control
Read v J Lyons - Damage
R v F rule does NOT give rise to liability for personal injury - the damage must be to C’s land
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
R v F rule is subject to remoteness - C can only cover damages which are reasonably foreseeable
Perry v Kendricks
Deliberate act of a third party does NOT give rise to a claim under R v F - so if the deliberate act of a third party causes the dangerous thing to escape from D’s land and cause damage to C’s land, D is not liable
