private nuisance Flashcards
what case defined private nuisance
Fearn v Tate gallery
definition of private nuisance
use of land which substantially interferes w ordinary use and enjoyment of neighbouring land judged by standards of ordinary person
what 3 things need to be established
- right to bring a claim
- interference
- unlawful
what must the claimant have
a legal interest and affected by interference
case for claimant
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Hunter v Canary Wharf facts
owners and tenants had right to bring an action but members of their family did not as they did not have legal interest
who is the defendant
person who created nuisance or allowed it to continue
case for defendant
Tetley v chitty
Tetley v chitty facts
allowed go kart racing on its land so liable for the noise
can a person be liable for a nuisance they did not create
yes a person can be liable for a nuisance they did not create if they adopted it
case for adopting nuisance
Sedleigh v O’Callaghan
Sedleigh v O’Callaghan facts
knew a pipe installed by someone else created a risk of flooding
liable as he allowed danger to continue
can D be liable if nuisance is due to natural causes
yes provided D was aware of nuisance and failed to deal w it
case for nuisance due to natural causes
Leaky v National trust
Leaky v National trust facts
aware of large mound that could slip
liable as they knew this may happen and failed to prevent it
does D need to have interest in land at they time nuisance occurs
yes
case for interest in land at time nuisance occurs
Anthony v coal authority
Anthony v coal authority facts
fire started from coal waste
aware of problem when they controlled land and failed to prevent it
what interference must there be
a substantial and indirect interference
2 forms of interference
physical damage or loss of amenity
physical damage interference
generally regarded as unlawful
eg damage to plants or crops from fumes etc
case for physical damage interference
Halsey v Esso
Halsey v Esso facts
acid smuts from oil depot damaged his car
loss of amenity interference
affects ordinary comfort of human existence
affects their ability to use or enjoy their land
case for loss of amenity smell
Bone v Seal
Bone v Seal facts
smells from pig farm amounted to loss of amenity
case for loss of amenity
Williams v Network rail
Williams v Network rail facts
enrichment of knotweed amounted to loss of amenity
risk of future physical damage affects their ability to develop their property
what must the interference relate to
C’s use or enjoyment of land
case for C’s use or enjoyment of land
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Hunter v Canary Wharf facts for C’s enjoyment of land
interference w TV reception not actionable nuisance as it was just a loss of a recreational facility
does visual intrusion amount to nuisance
yes
case for visual intrusion interference
Fearn v Tate Gallery
what can C not claim for
personal injuries
what is an unlawful interference
D’s activity interferes w C’s use of land
what will not give rise to liability (unlawful interference)
if D is making no more than a common and ordinary use of land and if activity was conveniently done w proper consideration for interests of neighbours
what 2 things must be decided for unlawful interference
if acts were
1. part of ordinary use and occupation of land
2. whether conveniently done w proper consideration for interests of neighbours
what 2 things need to be considered for ordinary use of land
locality and sensitivity of C
locality (unlawful interference)
character and nature of the area
eg residential, industrial
case for locality
Sturges v Bridgman
Sturges v Bridgman facts
noise from industrial equipment were a nuisance in a quiet residential area
special sensitivity
it is not relevant
may feel their neighbour is committing a nuisance but may be due to their own unreasonably high standards
it is whether damage was foreseeable
case for special sensitivity
robinson v kilvert
robinson v kilvert facts
heat damaged delicate paper
damage was due to special sensitivity of the paper
4 factors considered when considering if activity was conveniently done
duration
physical damage
malice
social utility
duration
length and degree of nuisance, time of day etc
case for duration
Barr v Biffa
Barr v Biffa facts
storage of organic material in landfill site was a nuisance as it led to many strong smells for over 5 years
when is a nuisance likely to arise from a single act
physical damage
physical damage case
crown river cruises v kimbolton fireworks
crown river cruises v kimbolton fireworks facts
debris from firework display landed on a barge and court fire
even tho nuisance did not last long, there was physical damage
malice
deliberately harmful or malicious act is more likely to be considered unlawful
malice case
Christie v Davey
Christie v Davey facts
neighbour banged on walls in retaliation while C gave music lessons
actions motivated by malice was a factor in deciding there was a nuisance
social utility
no defence to a claim in nuisance to say D is using their land reasonably or in a way that is beneficial to the public
does not prevent actionable nuisance, may change the remedy
case for social utility
Miller v Jackson
Miller v Jackson facts
community use if the cricket ground did not outweigh use of garden
instead awarded damages
2 defences to private nuisance
prescription
statutory authority
how many years does D need to carry out his activity for prescription
20 years
prescription defence
if D carried out acidity causing nuisance for 20 years and C has been aware of this and not complained, D has a prescriptive right to carry out the activity
case for prescription
Sturges v Bridgman
Sturges v Bridgman facts for prescription
- complained noise from next door factory was a disturbance to his patients when he started treating patients in his garden
- prescription failed as nuisance only began when consulting room was built
D cannot argue c moved to the nuisance where he moved closer to the factory
can D argue C is suffering nuisance bc they moved to the nuisance
no (Sturges)
coming to a nuisance is not a defence
case for coming to a nuisance and facts
Coventry v Lawrence
coming to a nuisance is not a defence provided C uses property for the same purpose before the alleged nuisance started
statutory authority defence
an action will fail if the nuisance is created by a public body acting under statutory authority
statutory authority case
allen v gulf oil
allen v gulf oil facts
could not sue about noise and fumes from oil refinery as it was built under powers in an act or parliament
what does planning permission mean (for remedies)
damages may be more likely to be awarded
when could planning permission be relevant
whether D is making more than an ordinary use of land if it changes the character of the neighbourhood
case for planning permission
Gillingham v Medway
Gillingham v Medway facts
planning permission to turn dockyard into commercial port
area now industrial, residents could not complain about lorries
3 remedies available
injunction
damages
abatement
injunction
discretionary court order prohibiting or controlling an activity
case for injunction
Kennaway v Thompson
Kennaway v Thompson facts
partial injunction
limited number of races D could organise at powerboat club
damages
courts may be less willing to grant injunction, damages may be more appropriate if planning permission or social utility
3 types of damages
physical damage
loss of amenity
punitive damages
physical damages
awarded if damage to land, plants, buildings etc
loss of amenity
damages awarded to reflect reduction in value of land or loss of business
punitive damages
extra money awarded to C because the court disapproves of the D’s behaviour
abatement
right of C to take reasonable steps to deal with any nuisance himself
