Private Nuisance Flashcards
Introduction?
Tort Law provides a possible action against people who use their home in such a way that it leads to a nuisance. Applies when only one neighbour is affected.
Claimant?
Hunter v Canary Wharf - The claimant must have an interest in the land, This will include the owner of the tenant but does not include a member of the owner’s family.
Defendant?
Bybrook v Kent - Person who is causing the nuisance.
Leakey v National Trust - The occupier who is allowing the nuisance to happen.
Tetley v Chitty - Landlords.
Unlawful?
The D’s activity must be unlawful, unlawful does not mean illegal, it means the D’s actions are unreasonable. “In the circumstances is it unreasonable for the claimant to have to suffer the interference”.
Interference: Damage?
No case just decide on what damage is.
Interference: Adams v Ursell?
Smells.
Interference: Halsey v Esso?
Noise, Dust, heat, light, vibrations.
Interference: Laws v Florinplace?
Feelings of distress/lowering tone of area.
Interference: Leakey v National Trust?
Natural Accidents.
Interference: Holbeck Hall v Scarborough?
Sudden Cliff subsidence.
Interference: Hunter v Canary Wharf?
Some forms of interference will not be given such as a right to a TV signal.
Interference: Loss of enjoyment?
No interference for loss of enjoyment of land.
Factors of reasonableness: Definition?
As all tort is about balancing the claims of interest between the claimant and the defendant the court will take into account any relevant factors about whether the use of the land by the D is unreasonable.
Factors of reasonableness: Locality?
Sturges v Bridgeman - The character of the neighbourhood will be considered, is the purely residential or industrial.
Factors of reasonableness: The duration of the interference?
Crown River Cruises - Is the duration continuous and at unreasonable hours of the day.
Factors of reasonableness: Sensitivity of the claimant?
Network Rail v Morris - If it can be shown that the claimant is particularly sensitive then the action may not be a nuisance.
Factors of reasonableness: Malice?
Hollywood v Emmet - A deliberately harmful act by the defendant will usually be considered a nuisance.
Factors of reasonableness: Social benefit?
Adams - If the D is providing a benefit to the community then his actions may not be a nuisance.
Defences: Contributory Negligence?
Law Reform Act 1945: States that any damages awarded to the claimant can be reduced according to the extent to which the claimant has contributed to his own harm.
Sayers v Harlow Council - The amount of blame will be decided by the judge who will then adjust the damages awarded.
Defences: Consent?
A) Claimant had knowledge of the risk involved - Sterner v Lawson.
B) Free will from the claimant - Smith v Baker.
C) A voluntary acceptance of the risk by the claimant.
Defences: Statutory Authority and Local Planning Permission?
Allen v Gulf Oil - the defendants relied on a statute which gave them permission to build an oil refinery and therefore, the courts decided permission to run it.
Defences: Prescription?
A unique defence to nuisance, if the action has been happening for the last 20 years and no complaint has happened from the same party in that time then the defence of prescription may be granted.
Coventry v Lawrence - It had to be the same party and the same action, a different action is not allowed.
Remedies: Injunction?
Lemon v Webb - Most common remedy, usually a prohibitory injunction to stop the nuisance from continuing.
Remedies: Abatement?
Kennaway v Thompson - Entering the premises to prevent the nuisance, e.g. entering the D’s garden to chop down overhanging trees.
Remedies: Damages?
Coventry v Lawrence - Courts now have a wider discretion relating to the award of damages and the remedy of injunction may not be awarded if the D can show that damages would be a suitable alternative.
