PN- comfort and convenience Flashcards
Bramwell v Turnley quote
‘a rule of give and take, live and let live’. (Reciprocity)
-cannot exceed reasonable limits- that when it would be unreasonable
what did Peter Cane describe the exercise of finding whether there has been an interference with comfort and convenience as
a fairness-based conception of justice
-fair accommodation of competing land uses
case that held that cases are assessed objectively
Walter v Selfe
what was held in Walter v Selfe
alleged interferences with amenity are assessed by reference to ‘plain and simple notions among English people’.
what does the principle of De minimise non curate lex mean
This principle states that the law does not take into account trivial inconsequential interferences, it wants a substantial unreasonable interference
Interference with comfort and convenience and locality
what case highlights the principle of ‘locality’
Sturges v Bridgman
Interference with comfort and convenience and locality
Sturges v Bridgman- what does this case show
- Where you have paid more to live, you will enjoy a higher level of amenity, and where you pay less to live, you enjoy lower levels of amenity
- This is an example of private nuisance law giving content to property rights
Interference with comfort and convenience and locality
what function does the law of PN perform
a zoning function
Interference with comfort and convenience and locality
case for: the nature of the locality may change
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Ltd
-a clash between private rights and public interest
Locality and planning and regulatory approval
case
Barr v Biffa Waste Management Services
Locality and planning and regulatory approval
what was held in Barr v Biffs Waste (the test)
would a normal person have found it reasonable to put up with the effects of D’s activities?
Locality and planning and regulatory approval
what analogy was drawn up in Barr v Biffa
an analogy between a ‘strategic planning decision’ (Gillingham BC) and the grant of a waste management permit.
Locality and planning and regulatory approval
final decision in Barr v Biffa
the court concluded that the grant of the permit didn’t have wide ranging publicly significant impact, it was a different type of regulatory intervention. Private interest won out.
Balancing
state the 4 factors considered as part of the multifactorial balancing exercise
- abnormal sensitivity
- level of interference
- public-benefit
- mallice
Balancing
what 2 things does the multifactorial balancing exercise include
- strong judicial discretion
- fact sensitive responses to claims
Abnormal sensitivity
2 cases
- Robinson v Kilvert
- Heath v Mayor of Brighton
Abnormal sensitivity
what does this mean
that C’s who abnormally sensitive will not win a claim
Abnormal sensitivity and television
2 cases
- Bridlington Relay Ltd v Yorkshire Electricity Board
- Hunter v Canary Wharf
level (or intensity) of the interference
3 cases
- Matania v National Provincial Bank Ltd
- British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd
- SCM v W.J Whittall
level (or intensity) of the interference
outcome in Mantania v national Provincial Bank Ltd
a temporary interference may, if substantial, constitute an actionable nuisance
level (or intensity) of the interference
outcome in British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd
An isolated occurrence can give rise to an actionable private nuisance: only if intense enough (Lawton J)
level (or intensity) of the interference
outcome in SCM v W.J Whittall
although a single escape may constitute a private nuisance, the nuisance must arise from the condition of D’s land or from activities carried out on the land.
public benefit
it is not a …
defence
public benefit
case
Miller v Jackson (cricket case)
public benefit
outcome in Miller v Jackson (3)
- Private benefit can be used as a remedy but not a defence
- Remedies are the route for a just outcome
- Using remedies to accommodate or strike a fair balance between competing land uses.
malice
3 cases
- Christie v Davey
- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett
- Bradford Corporation v Pickles
what does malice mean
intentional annoyance
malice
outcome in Christie v Davey
- D held liable. Permanent injunction imposed.
- Since C had behaved unreasonably, ‘music hours’(Weir (Tort Law)) were imposed
remedies are a way of …
striking a just balance between the competing land uses
malice
outcome in Hollywood Silver Fox
- D held liable (having acted maliciously). He acted unreasonably.
- we can argue that malicious acts lack social utility – and malice tips the balance towards finding D’s use (of land) unreasonable.
malice
outcome in Bradford Corporation
D was entitled to stop water- conduct was lawful
what is the third type of case that PN encompasses
measured of duty of care cases
what is measured out of care cases about
it looks at how the D behaves
Goldman v Hargrave (Privy Council) outcome
- D held liable
- D must take adequate steps to alleviate the risk, to remove or reduce hazards to their neighbours.
what standard does the D have to be held to in the measured duty of care cases (Lord Wilberforce)
D has to be held to a fault based negligence standard
- negligence or PN may be brought up in this type of claim
- RP test re-enters
when is a measured duty of care owed
when dangers arise 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 can be pleaded either in private nuisance or negligence
Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd v Scarborough Borough Council outcome
- D owed a duty of care
- the distinction between patent and latent defects made
- The duty arises when the defect is known and the hazard or danger to the claimant’s land is reasonably foreseeable- Stuart-Smith LJ
- relevance of fair, just and reasonable (Caparo)
what distinction was made in Holbeck
distinction between patent and latent defects
Holbeck
what are patent defects
reasonably foreseeable- a duty arises if something is reasonably foreseeable
Holbeck
what are latent defects
not reasonably foreseeable. Duty does not arise here if there is a latent defect
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell
what did Etherton MR say the purpose of PN is (2)
- to protect the owner of the land in their use and enjoyment of the land
- not to protect the value of the property or financial asset
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell
outcome
-damages were awarded for the non-enjoyment of the land, not for the diminution in value of the property
remoteness
what is the test
is the harm of a reasonably foreseeable type
remoteness
2 cases for the remoteness test
- Overseas Tankship
- Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc
remoteness
what does Howarth say the D is not liable for type of damage
The defendant is not responsible for damage that flows from the [claimant’s] extra vulnerability
remoteness
who can sure
- The claimant must have a right in or over the affected land: Hunter v Canary Wharf
- Proprietary or possessory interests; freehold owners, tenants in occupation, reversioners: Khorasandjian v Bush
who can be sued
- person who creates nuisance
- occupier of land- D in PN
- Ocuupier’s landlord
- landlords
when may landlords be liable for PN
1) where they authorise the nuisance
2) have an obligation to repair
3) the nuisance existed prior to the letting
Coventry v Lawrence outcome (landlords)
landlords will be held liable for a private nuisance created by their tenants where they have authorised the interference or directly participated in it.
Smith v Scott outcome (landlords)
nuisance caused by tenants (anti-social/’problem’ family). Landlord (local authority) not held liable. This was because of covenant (not to create a nuisance).
