Private Nuisance Flashcards
Physical strictness (damage) (2)
- Physical damage to C’s land may ground a private nuisance action
- Wringe v Cohen
o D’s building collapses into C’s property causing damage – secured a remedy - Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan
o D’s drain became blocked. C’s land flooded – secured a remedy
Interference with comfort and convenience (amenity)
- Intangible damage e.g. noise, smells, dust
- Thompson-Schwab v Costaki
o Brothel in a good class residential street interfered with comfort and convenience – brought level of amenity of street down - St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping
o Damage caused by pollution from industrial activity which damaged trees on C’s property
o There was physical damage so could expect a remedy
o Also interfered with comfort and convenience – here the courts exercise a balancing act between C and D’s interests - Bamford v Turnley
o A rule of give and take, live and let live
o Must be tolerant of trivial interferences – ensures courts aren’t overwhelmed with claims
o Have to consider intensity and duration of interference - Walter v Selfe
o Have to consider if C has abnormal sensitivity
o Alleged interferences with amenity are assessed by reference to plain and simple notions among English people
o Law would not be responsive to those who are abnormally sensitive to interference - Sturges v Bridgman
o Law of private nuisance performs a zoning function
o What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey – more money you have spent for the area of the property, you can expect a higher level of amenity - Gillingham Borough Council v Medway
o Planning permission granted to turn old navel base dock into an economic hub to improve economy – wanted to create more jobs
o Local residents argued that this decreased level of amenity due to planning law
o Courts had to balance private nuisance with public interest - Barr v Biffa Waste Management Services
o D operated landfill which it tipped odorous waste – Environment Agency granted D a waste management permit
o C’s complained of strong smells in nearby houses – decreasing level of amenity
o Would a normal person have found it reasonable to put up with the effects of D’s activities?
o D’s permit for waste management did not benefit the public in same level that Gillingham case had so C not expected to put up with same level of decreased amenity
Abnormal sensitivity (3)
o Robinson v Kilvert
o C’s premises above D’s. C storing sensitive paper on premises – D’s manufacturing below conducted heat which rose onto C’;s premises and damaged the paper
o This was abnormally sensitive so D not liable
o Heath v Mayor
o Heat generated by noisy generator which disrupted church service – this was a normally sensitive situation so claimants had to just put up with it, could not claim
o Hunter v Canary Wharf
o Interference with television reception caused by tall building was not identified as actionable nuisance
Level of interference (duration/intensity) (1)
o Matania v National Provincial Bank
o A temporary interference may, if substantial, constitute an actionable nuisance
Public benefit (1)
o Miller v Jackson
o Cannonade of cricket balls from adjoining cricket field. C feels unsafe in her home – actionable private nuisance
o Public benefit has relevance to remedy available – court would not give injunction to stop crocket balls as have to strike fair balance between competing land uses – C wants to enjoy peace in home but there is a public benefit from use of community cricket ground
Malice (2)
o Christie v Davey
o Parties lived in adjoining houses. D annoyed by music lessons given by C
o D banged on wall, beat trays and shouted in retaliation
o D held liable as actions were not of a legitimate kind – only done for the purpose of annoyance so would be malice – permanent injunction imposed
o However since C had behaved unreasonably, time limit for playing music was introduced – court tried to accommodate competing land uses
o Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
o D fired gun with aim of upsetting C’s sensitive silver foxes on C’s land
o Caused animals to devour their young – D held liable as acting in spite/ill will
o Malice tips the balance of competing land uses towards D’s use of land being unreasonable
Measured duty of care (4)
- Goldman v Hargrave
o Due to lightning strike on D’s land, tree caught fire and became danger to C’s property
o D took inadequate steps to alleviate the risk – fire spreads and damaged C’s property
o D held liable – D owed a measured duty of care to remove or reduce hazards to neighbours – applied reasonable person standard (D failed to take reasonable care) - Leakey v National Trust
o Because of geological structure, D’s land was prone to subsidence – D is under a duty to do what is reasonable to prevent or minimise a known risk to a neighbour’s property - Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough Borough Council
o Due to coastal erosion, a cliff on land belonging to D collapsed into sea – C’s hotel was destroyed
o D should have followed advice of geological experts and spent money countering problem of coastal erosion
o CofA said only a reasonable duty of care is required by D - Network Rail Infrastructure v Williams and Waistell
o Japanese knotweed, which had grown on D’s land spread to Williams and Waistell’s properties – Network Rail had breached a duty owed to Cs and had caused nuisance and damage
o Knotweed damages amenity of the land
o Knotweed had reduced value of the property – private nuisance exists to protect property itself, not the market value of it – this would be radical reformulation of the law so CofA did not take this bold step
Critical commentary for private nuisance (1)
- Peter Cane
o Fairness-based conception of justice
o Want to accommodate interests of all people – must be respectful
o If not being respectful then let the law do its work
