Private Nuisance

Question 1

quote for private nuisance

Answer 1

An unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land

Question 2

What 3 elements must be proven to sue under private nuisance

Answer 2

1. There is an interference
2. The damage was foreseeable
3. Interference was unlawful

Question 3

Interference with case law

Answer 3

Often direct
Sturges v bridgeman- noise and vibrations
St Helen smelting v tipping- smoke and fumes
Bliss v hall- smells
Halsey v esso petroleum- smelled and physical damage
Hunter v canary wharf- problems with tv reception. Not allowed as it would open flood gates

Question 4

Damage

Answer 4

Claimant must prove causation and damage was reasonably foreseeable.

Question 5

Damage

Answer 5

Claimant must prove causation and damage was reasonably foreseeable.

Question 6

Unreasonableness with case law

Answer 6

‘Live and let live’ e.g. dogs barking
Sensitivity-not responsible if overly sensitive. Robinson v kilvert- delicate brown paper and claim failed. By contrast, even if you are unusually sensitive, it cant infringe on ordinary enjoyment. McKinnon industry v Walker- delicate orchids damaged my sulphur fumes. Liable as it infringed enjoyment.

Question 7

Locality and case law

Answer 7

Sturges v bridgeman- what may be a nuisance on belgeave square wouldn’t be a nuisance in bermondsey.
St Helen smelting v tipping- industrial area. Physical damage from copper fumes. Held liable
Murdock v glacier metal co- low droning noise. Prevented claimant from sleeping. Not a nuisance as no one else complained

Question 8

Planning permission and case law

Answer 8

Gillingham BC v medway- planning permission for commercial port. Change in nature of area so no nuisance.
Wheeler v Saunders- pig farmer granted permission to scam to 2 more pig houses. No chance in character of neighbourhood so was a nuisance.

Question 9

duration and case law

Answer 9

most likely to be duration is continuous not a one off.
De Keyser’s royal hotel v Spicer bros- injunction granted to prevent building work taking place at night.
crown river cruise v Kimberly fireworks- established even 20 minute firework show could be a nuisance.

Question 10

malice and case law

Answer 10

malice is bad motive.
christie v Davey- claimant was a music teacher. defendant deliberately banged on walls. conduct was unreasonable.

Question 11

who can be sued

Answer 11

the creator of the nuisance, the occupier of the land, the owner of the land.

Question 12

who can sue

Answer 12

have to have proprietary interest in the land.

Question 13

perceived defences and actual defences

Answer 13

coming to the nuisance- we were here first- miller v Jackson- cricket club kept having balls fly over the fence. not a defence.
care and skill- not a defence
public benefit- not a defence- miller v Jackson- tried to say cricket club was of public benefit
prescription- IS a defence- acquire the right to commit a nuisance if occurring for more than 20 years with no action. Sturges v bridgeman- claim failed as there has been change in the land over the 20 years.

Question 14

remedies

Answer 14

abatement, damages, prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction.

Question 15

abatement

Answer 15

self help. hard to apply as you can break the law and trespass.

Question 16

damages

Answer 16

fairly rare as it doesn’t stop the nuisance, it just repays for it. it could also open floodgates. Coventry v Lawrence- damages can be awarded in some circumstances

Question 17

prohibitory injunction

Answer 17

limits the defendant. Bellew v cement- shut down Irelands only cement factory. kennaway v Thompson- boat racing on a lake, noise was a nuisance, injunction granted.

Question 18

mandatory injunction

Answer 18

must do something in a certain time period.