PN- comfort and convenience Flashcards by naf khan

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

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

case that held that cases are assessed objectively

Walter v Selfe

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

what was held in Walter v Selfe

alleged interferences with amenity are assessed by reference to ‘plain and simple notions among English people’.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Interference with comfort and convenience and locality

what case highlights the principle of ‘locality’

Sturges v Bridgman

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Interference with comfort and convenience and locality

what function does the law of PN perform

a zoning function

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Locality and planning and regulatory approval

case

Barr v Biffa Waste Management Services

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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?

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Balancing

state the 4 factors considered as part of the multifactorial balancing exercise

abnormal sensitivity
level of interference
public-benefit
mallice

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Balancing

what 2 things does the multifactorial balancing exercise include

strong judicial discretion

- fact sensitive responses to claims

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Abnormal sensitivity

2 cases

Robinson v Kilvert

- Heath v Mayor of Brighton

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Abnormal sensitivity

what does this mean

that C’s who abnormally sensitive will not win a claim

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Abnormal sensitivity and television

2 cases

Bridlington Relay Ltd v Yorkshire Electricity Board

- Hunter v Canary Wharf

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

level (or intensity) of the interference

outcome in Mantania v national Provincial Bank Ltd

a temporary interference may, if substantial, constitute an actionable nuisance

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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).