private nuisance Flashcards
private nuisance
definition
– an unlawful indirect interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land
Concerns people living in proximity to each other - involves competing claims of people to do as they wish on their own land
parties to the nuisance
Claimant– must have an interest in the land – owner or tenant
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd. – members of a household who do not have an interest in the land cannot claim
Defendant – the person causing or allowing the nuisance – does not need to have an interest in the land
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan – an occupier who knows of the danger and allows it to continue is liable even if he has not created the danger himself (a pipe laid by the national authority on D’s land which blocked and caused flooding to neighbouring land)
Leakey v National Trust – D can be liable where the nuisance is the result of natural causes which he is aware of but fails to deal with (large natural mound that slipped and damaged C’s cottage)
private nuisance
unlawful use of the land
Not necessarily illegal but unreasonable in how it affects C
Courts must balance conflicting interests of neighbours, and they are expected to experience some “give and take”
private nuisance
unlawful use of the land
Factors Affecting Reasonableness
locality
duration of interference
c’s tolerance
malice from d
Locality – character of the neighbourhood:
Residential/partly commercial/industrial;
Town/Country
Duration of Interference – likely to be continuous and at unreasonable hours of the day.
BUT – Crown River Cruises Ltd. V Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd. – short-term activity can amount to nuisance
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd. V Spicer Bros Ltd. – building work at night interfered with C’s sleep – temporary building work can amount to nuisance
C’s Tolerance
Heath v Mayor of Brighton – test of reasonableness is based on whether it would affect a person of normal tolerance
Robinson v Kilvert – if C is unduly sensitive, nuisance will not be found
Malice from D – a deliberately harmful act will normally be unreasonable and a nuisance
Christie v Davey – C was a music teacher, held musical parties and lessons in his house. D became annoyed and banged on walls with hands and trays, blew whistles and shouted – D’s deliberate and malicious behaviour amounted to nuisance
private nuisance
types of interference
loss of amenity
material damage
emotional distress
Loss of amenity – e.g.
Fumes drifting over neighbouring land
Smell from farm animals
Noise from children’s playground or motor racing circuit
Material Damage – dangerous state of affairs on D’s land causes physical damage to C’s land – e.g.
Tree roots causing subsidence
Fire
Cricket balls hit into a garden
Emotional Distress – e.g.
Thompson-Schwab v Costaki – running a brothel in a residential area was interference
Laws v Florinplace Ltd. – a sex shop in an area of shops, restaurants and housing was an interference
Can’t claim to protect a view, right to light, recreational facility
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd. – loss of a recreational facility (e.g. TV reception) not sufficient
remedies for private nuisance
injunctions-
prohibitory injunction
mandatory injunction
damages-
abatement
ADR
Injunctions
Probibitory Injunction – order of court to stop doing something
Mandatory Injunction – less common – order of court to carry out a certain action
E.g. install soundproofing, install extractor
Can be during a case – e.g disclose documents
Damages
Abatement – e.g. entering D’s premises to prevent further nuisance e.g. chop down overhanging branches
ADR – (not a remedy as such) – court encourage negotiation and mediation as it allows parties to come to a resolution with less confrontation – important as still have to live alongside each other
private nusiance
deciding between injunction or damages
Kennaway v Thompson – injunctions can be granted in whole or part (possibly injunction for part of nuisance and damages for rest)
Social benefit – if D is providing a benefit to the community – more likely that C will be awarded damages rather than an injunction
Miller v Jackson – Injunction not an automatic right - if there is a social benefit to the activity, damages should be considered rather than injunction
Dennis v MoD – benefit to public should be a reason to award compensation to C rather than injunction
Coventry v Lawrence – damages should be considered as a remedy more often, especially where planning permission has been awarded or a public interest is involved – may lead to courts awarding fewer injunctions
private nuisance
moving to the nuisance
not a defence
E.g. Miller v Jackson – can’t argue they moved near the cricket ground
E.g. Sturges v Bridgman – can’t argue he moved near the nuisance by building his consulting room near the factory
private nuisance essay steps
- definition
- parties to the nuisance
- unlawful use of the land
- locality
- duration
- tolerance of c
- malice from d
- types of interference
parties to the nuisance cases
hunter v canary wharf
sedliegh denfield v o’callaghan
leakey v national trust
unlawful use of the land cases
duration -
crown river cruises ltd v kimbolton fireworks ltd
de keyser’s royal hotel ltd v spicer bros ltd
c’s tolerance -
heath v major of brighton
robinson v kilvert
malice form d -
christie v davey
type of interference cases
emoltional distress
- thompson - schwab v costaki
- laws v florinplace ltd
cant claim to protect a view, right to light, recreational facility
- hunter v canary wharf
deciding between injuction or damages
kennaway v thompson
social benefit -
- miller v jackson
- dennis v mod
- coventry v lawrence
defences prescription
sturges v bridgman
coventry v lawrence
defences planning permission
gillingham borough council v medway dock co
wheeler v saunders
