Private Nuisance

Question 1

Private nuisance is concerned with protecting the rights of an occupier against..

Answer 1

unreasonable interference with the enjoyment or use of his land

Question 2

What must the claimant have in order to bring a claim

Answer 2

An interest in the land in which they claim their enjoyment or use of it has been unreasonably interfered with. (legal interest) Malone v Laskey

Question 3

What could interference be?

Answer 3

Smells - Wheeler v JJ saunders
Noise - Kennaway v Thompson
Cricket balls - Miller v jackson

Question 4

What does unlawful interference mean?

Answer 4

Unreasonable use of land by defendant which leads to an unreasonable interference with c’s use or enjoyment of their own land - southwark v mills

Question 5

What will courts consider when determining if use is reasonable or not?

Answer 5

Nature of the neighbourhood.
Duration
Sensitivity
Malice

Question 6

What did LJ state in sturges v bridgman concerning nuisance?

Answer 6

What would be a nuisance in Belgrave square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey. Industrial area v residential area.

Question 7

Can planning permission change the nature of a neighbourhood?

Answer 7

Yes but cannot give permission for nuisance. Coventry v Lawrence

Question 8

Is the nature of a neighbourhood relevant regarding physical damage?

Answer 8

No. St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping

Question 9

How does the duration of a nuisance affect the unlawful interference rule?

Answer 9

Longer a nuisance lasts, the greater the interference and likelihood of it being held to be unlawful.

Question 10

What if the claimant is particularly sensitive?

Answer 10

The defendant will not be liable unless the activity would amount to nuisance to a reasonable person. Robinson v Kilvert
McKinnon Industries v Walker

Question 11

If the defendants actions are malicious…

Answer 11

They are more likely to be held unreasonable.

Hollywood silver fox farm v Emmett

Question 12

Is foreseeability required?

Answer 12

Yes the damage must be foreseeable. Cambridge water v Eastern counties leather.

Question 13

Malone v Laskey

Answer 13

Injured when cistern fell on her.

Unsuccessful because she did not have an interest in the house

Question 14

Southwark v Mills

Answer 14

Complained of lack of soundproofing, could hear day to day activities. Must be unreasonable, wasn’t an unreasonable action

Question 15

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 15

Motor sports becoming noisier - If character of locality is changed due to planning permission, then nuisance is decided against background of its new character, and otherwise offensive activities cease to constitute a nuisance

Question 16

St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping

Answer 16

Damage caused by smelting works to crops. Physical damage means locality principle has no relevance

Question 17

Robinson v Kilvert

Answer 17

Damaged c’s brown paper due to heat. D was not liable as C’s paper was particularly sensitive compared to normal paper.

Question 18

McKinnon Industries v Walker

Answer 18

Fumes killed plants. Sensitivity, although the flowers were sensitive the other plants were not, so still unlawful intereference.

Question 19

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

Answer 19

Maliciously scared the foxes impeding breeding. Malice, despite foxes being sensitive due to his malice he was still liable.

Question 20

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather

Answer 20

Solvents went through floor into water company hole.

It was not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 21

Is benefit of the community a defence?

Answer 21

Sometimes. Miller v Jackson - no injunction but they were granted damages