PN 3 Flashcards
Apart from physical interference and interferences with comfort and convenience, what else does PN encompass
measured duty of care cases
case for measured duty of care
Goldman v Hargrave (Privy Council)
What was held in Goldman v Hargrave
- occupiers to remove or reduce hazards to their neighbours’ (similar to neighbour principle)
- D needs to take adequate steps to alleviate the risks
what standard is the D held to as held in Goldman
a fault-based standard (Lord Wilberforce)
-reasonable person test applies
when is a measured duty of care owed
vis-à-vis dangers arising from operations of nature affecting something on D’s land.
Leakey v National Trust outcome
occupiers are under a duty to do that which is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent or minimise a known risk to a neighbour’s property (or to the neighbour).
-cases of this sort can be pleaded in PN or negligence
Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd v Scarborough Borough Council
- D owed C a duty of care
- The duty arises when the defect is known and the hazard or danger to the claimant’s land is reasonably foreseeable’.
- relevance of fairness, justice, and reasonableness’ (Caparo test)
what did the judge argue about the Leakey case in Holbeck
that the duty in Leakey is ‘measured
what distinction was made in Holbeck
the distinction between patent and latent defects.
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell
outcome
Mr Recorder Grubb held that Network Rail had breached a duty it owed to the claimants (and had caused continuing nuisance and damage).
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell
what case was used to show that the knotweed was a ‘natural hazard’
Goldman v Hargrave and Leakey v National Trust.- amenity value of the land
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell
quote: the purpose of nuisance is to …
‘The purpose of … nuisance is … to protect the owner of the land (or a person entitled to exclusive possession) in their use and enjoyment of the land’ [48].
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell
quote: ‘the purpose of nuisance is NOT to protect …
‘the value of the property as an investment or financial asset’ [48].
3 types of interference
- physical interference (strict approach)
- interference with comfort and convenience (contextualised balancing)
- measured duty of care (fault-based standard)
remoteness
what is the test
is the harm of a reasonably foreseeable type?
remoteness
2 cases
Overseas Tankship
Cambridge Waster Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc
remoteness
which case brought an end the controversy which had been a feature of PN law
-Cambridge Water Co
remoteness
what was the controversy which ended in Cambridge Water Co
The controversy concerned the relevant remoteness rule, it wasn’t clear what it was. (Re polimis)
remoteness
what is the new test for remoteness
reasonable foreseeability
which principle is not a feature of PN - quote
egg shell skull principle-
-‘The defendant is not responsible for damage that flows from the [claimant’s] extra vulnerability’ (Howarth)
who can sue (2)
- claimant must have a right in or over the affected land: Hunter v Canary Wharf
- Proprietary or possessory interests
who can sue?
which ECHR article must we keep in mind
Article 8 ECHR- qualified right to privacy
who can be sued (3)
- The person who creates the nuisance.
- The occupier of the land – typically the defendant in private nuisance.
- The occupier’s landlord.
when can landlords be sued (3)
(a) authorise the nuisance;
(b) have an obligation to repair,
(c) the nuisance existed prior to the letting.
case for landlords being sued (2)
- Coventry v Lawrence (Supreme Court)
- Smith v Scott
why was landlord not held liable in Smith v Scott
nuisance caused by tenants (anti-social/’problem’ family). Landlord (local authority) not held liable. This was because of covenant (not to create a nuisance).
outcome in Coventry v Lawrence
landlords will be held liable for a private nuisance created by their tenants where they have authorised the interference or directly participated in it.
