Private Nuisance Flashcards
Hunter V Canary Wharf
Claimant must have a legal interest in the land (owner, tenant)
Restriction can be overtaken by a right
Mckenna V British Aluminium
Normal person to sue is creator of nuisance
Tetley v Chitty
Person who has adopted the nuisance
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan
If there is physical damage, almost certainly a nuisance and the whole balancing of rights except for sensitivity will not be relevant
ST Helen’s smelting Co v Tipping
Locality, Thesiger J, ‘What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not be so in Bermondsey”
Sturges v Bridgman
More continuous the nuisance, more likely it will be actionable
Harrison v Southwark Water
Crown River Cruises V Kimbolton Fireworks (Exception 20 minute firework display)
De Keyser’s Hotel V Spicer Bros
Even a temporary interference may be actionable if it is of a kind at a time when it becomes unacceptable interference
Deliberate harmful act normally unreasonable behaviour and would considered a Nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm
Robinson v Kilvert
If claimant is unduly sensitive, they may not have a claim (Applies to Physical Damage)
Protect right to view surrounding countryside
Hunter V Canary Wharf
If Nuisance has continued for 20 years without complaint, right to complain will lapse
Sturges V Bridgman
Not a defence, but where there is a public benefit from an activity a court may decide damages are a sufficient remedy
Miller v Jackson
Injunction can be partial due to balancing interests
Kenaway v Thompson
The Wagon Mound
Only recover for damage which is reasonably foreseeable
