PRIVATE NUISANCE Flashcards
ELEMENTS OF PRIVATE NUISANCE
- INDIRECT INTERFERENCE
- UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE
- MATERIAL DAMAGE
DEFINITION OF PRIVATE NUISANCE (W CASE)
ANY CONTINUOUS ACTIVITY OR STATE OF AFFAIRS CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL AND UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE WITH A Persons land or enjoyment of it
(BAMFORD V TURNLEY)
NOISE
(CHRISTIE V DAVEY)
WATER
(SEDLEIGH-DENFIELD V O’CALLAGHAN)
UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE
one that goes beyond acceptable behaviour
(SOUTHWARK LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL V MILLS)
Factors for courts to consider unreasonable interference LOCALITY…
…the character of locality can be changed when planning permission is granted
(STURDGES V BRIDGMAN)
(GILLINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL V MEDWAY)
Factors…
DURATION
THE LONGER THE INTERFERENCE CONTINUES THE MORE ITS LIKE TO BE A NUISANCE…
…BUT SHORT INTERFERENCE COULD STILL CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM
(BOLTON V STONE)
(CROWN RIVER CRUISES V KIMBOLTON FIREWORK)
Factors…
SENSITIVITY
the court does not take into account abnormal sensitivity
(ROBINSON V KILVERT)
claimant can claim for the right to ordinary enjoyment and claim for extra claims caused by unusual sensitivity
(MCKINNON INDUSTRIES V WALKER)
Factors…
MALICE means bad motive
(CHRISTIE V DAVEY)
(HOLLYWOOD SILVER FOX FARM V EMMETT)
DAMAGE … damage must be more than trivial
personal injury is not usually recoverable but can be claimed under negligence.
PHYSICAL DAMAGE ()
PERSONAL DISCOMFORT AND ENCROACHMENT
(ST HELENS SMELTING CO V TIPPING)
(LEMMON V WEBB)
WHO CAN SUE IN PRIVATE NUISANCE??
TRADITIONAL VIEW CLAIMANT HAD TO HAVE A PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE LAND AFFECTED BY THE PRIVATE NUISANCE
THE TRADITIONAL VIEW CHANGED IN…
(KHORANSANDJAN V BUSH)
WHO CAN SUE WAS CHANGED BACK TO ITS TRADITIONAL VIEW IN…
…and PRINCIPLE WAS CONFIRMED IN…
(MCKENNA V BRITISH ALUMINIUM)
(HUNTER V CANARY WHARF)
A PERSON WHO AUTHORISES THE NUISANCE CAN BE SUED SUCCESSFULLY
(TETLEY V CHITTY)
A PERSON WHO ADOPTS THE NUISANCE CAN BE SUED SUCCESSFULLY
(SEDLEIGH-DENFIELD V O’CALLAGHAN)
A CREATOR OF THE NUISANCE CAN ALSO BE SUED SUCCESSFULLY
DEFENCES…
PRESCRIPTION?
DEFENCE TO SHOW THAT THE NUISANCE HAD BEEN ACTIONABLE FOR 20YRS AND CLAIMANT WAS AWARE IT HAD AFFECTED THEIR INTEREST DURING THAT TIME
(COVENTRY V LAWRENCE)
DEFENCES…
STATUTORY AUTHORITY?
IF AN ACT AUTHORISES DEFENDANTS ACTIVITIES, DEFENDANT WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INTERFERNCE OF ENJOYMENT THAT ARE AN INEVITABLE OUTCOME OF THE ACTIVITY
(ALLEN V GULF OIL REFINING)
