Private And Public Nuisance Flashcards
What is public nuisance Nuisance lecture PowerPoint and P115
Public nuisance is an at which materially affects the reasonable comfort and connivence of life of a class of people and the claimant suffers special damages above the others. Defined in Attorney General V PYA Quarries (1957) as ‘something which materially affects the reasonable comfort and connivence of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects.’ Can be bought by local authorities so criminal but if damage to an individual they can bring civil.
What must be proven for there to be public nuisance PP and P116
There has to be a class of people affected by the nuisance. There is no set minimum but likely greater than 2 or 3. It does not have to be every member but that a representative cross section has been affected. There also has to be special damage, the claimant must have suffered loss over and above those of the rest of the class.
Case that shows public nuisance P116
Castle V St Augustine Links (1922), a golf club had be sited a golf tee next to a public road that went through the club grounds. Golfers often sliced balls onto the highway, sometimes hitting cars. On one occasion a taxi was hit, breaking the windscreen and injuring the driver in the eye. The golf club was liable for public nuisance. The class of people affected were the car drivers who drove along the road. The claimant suffered special damages over and above that of the class.
Example of a case that did not constitute a class of people PP
R V Rimmington (2006), the defendant sent racially abusive letters to 538 unconnected people. The HOL said that public nuisance should not be used where a specific statutory offence has been committed (breach of Malicious Communications Act). 538 random individuals did not amount to a class of people.
Can you claim public nuisance for personal injury P116 and PP
Corby Group V Corby Borough Council (2008), Corby is a Yorkshire town, they developed new housing on an old steel works. After building the houses the land was found to be poisonous and 30 children were born with limb defects.
The COA decided that public nuisance is not confined to the loss of enjoyment of land. It is an unlawful act or omission which endangers the life, safety, health, property or comfort of the public.
Other example of public nuisance P116 and 117
It can include damage to goods, as with damage to car paint work in Halsey V Esso Petroleum Co (1961)
An oil refinery discharged oily smuts which damaged the paint work of the claimant’s car parked in the street outside his house. Other cars in the vicinity may have also been affected but the claimant suffered damage over and above that of others and was able to claim for repairs to paint work.
A public claim can also be for financial loss in Rose V Miles (1815), the defendant’s barge blocked a navigable river. The claimant was forced to empty his barge and pay for alternative transport and the def was liable for the extra cost incurred and could be for loss of trade connections.
What are the defences and remedies P117
The main defences are consent and contributory Negligence.
Remedies are an injection will benefit all those affected by an action, though only one of the group has to take action.
Damages can be claimed for any special damage suffered by the claimant, which include any personal injury.
What is private nuisance PP and P118
Continuous, unlawful interference with the use or enjoyment of land.
Often have to add the word indirect because any interference is likely to be caused by noise, smoke or smell, although direct may be tree roots under foundations.
Not every interference is unlawful.
What must the claimant have to sue PP
The claimant needs to have a proprietary interest in the land whether this being the owner or tenant but not a member of the family of the owner.
This was shown in the Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
A large neighbourhood in East London suffered interference with TV due to a large tower being built
People affected included property owners, their families, lodgers and people renting
The HOL said that only people with a proprietary interest could sue in nuisance (though they said the spouse of an owner has a beneficial interest in land so could sue as well)
Case that shows the person who is causing or allowing the nuisance can be sued PP and 118
In Tetley V Chitty (1986), a council was liable for the noise created by a go-cart club which hired their land.
Case showing that someone can be liable for adopting the nuisance, failed to deal with the problem even if it was caused by someone else P118
Sedleigh Denfield V O’Callaghan (1940), the defendant was an order of monks who occupied land where there was a ditch. The local authority, without the knowledge of the defendant, laid a pipe to take water away from the ditch. The pipe had a grate to stop leaves blocking it but the grate was situated in the wrong place and became blocked. As a result the neighbouring land was flooded. By this time the defendant knew of the pipe.
The defendants were liable in nuisance because the HOL decided that an occupier who knows of the danger and allows it to continue is liable even if he has not created the danger himself.
Does nuisance cover a one off event P120
To be actionable the interference is likely to be continuous and at unreasonable hours of the day so a one off party would likely not be nuisance.
However, in Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks (1996) a river barge was set alight by flammable debris, resulting from a firework display that only lasted 20 mins. This was an actionable nuisance.
Spicer V Smee
A fire broke out on the defendant’s property caused by faulty wiring. The fire spread to neighbouring property owned by the claimant. The claimant’s action for nuisance succeeded. A private nuisance arises out of a state of things where one person’s property causes damage to their neighbour’s land. The faulty wiring was classed as a continuing state of affairs.
Unlawful interference PP and law e-resources
Interference with the claimant’s quiet enjoyment of land that is a foreseeable result of defendant’s use of his own land is unreasonable.
St Helens Smelting v Tipping (1865) the defendant’s factory caused pollution which caused physical damage to the defendant’s land.
Held: Where there is physical damage to property, the locality principle has no relevance. It is no defence that the claimant came to the nuisance.
Personal inconvenience depends on locality, this was shown in Sturges V Bridgeman (1879).
The defendant ran a confectionary shop which operated a noisy pestle and mortar. It had done so for over 20 years but had no neighbouring property so there were no complaints as to its use. The claimant then built a consulting room for his practice as a physician adjacent to the defendant’s noisy shop. The claimant brought an action in nuisance to obtain an injunction to prevent the continuance of the noise. The defendant, relying on the Prescription Act, argued that he had obtained the right to be noisy by operating the noisy pestle for over twenty years.
Held: The use of land prior to the construction of the consulting room was not preventable or actionable and therefore it was not capable of founding a prescription right.
Hunter V Canary Wharf (1987), the HOL said there was no right to TV reception, but this was influenced by the availability of cable TV.
Unlawful interference factors PP and P121
Sensitivity of claimant - Sensitivity of claimant (paper was specially sensitive and so damage through heat was not a nuisance as normal paper would not be effected. (Robinson v Kilvert 1889).
Public benefit – eg building works to benefit the community are less likely to be a nuisance. This was shown in Miller V Jackson (1977).
The claimants use of their garden was disrupted by cricket balls being hit from an adjoining recreation ground. The benefit to the community outweighed the private use of the land, so refused an injunction.
Malice of the defendant - it is not a reasonable use of the land to vex a neighbour. Banging metal trays on wall to interrupt music lessons as they did not like the noise, so there was an injunction. Christie V Davey (1893).
