private nuisance

Question 1

definition

Answer 1

protects an individuals interest in land from physical damage and interference with their enjoyment of the land
MUST BE AN INDIRECT INTERFERENCE

Question 2

claimants

Answer 2

must have proprietary interest in the land. Covers the owner of the land but also an occupier who has a lease or tenancy of the land. Not cover someone who is simply permitted to use the land (a licensee)
> tenant is able to bring a claim but not a member of his/her family

Question 3

Malone v Laskey

Answer 3

Mrs malone was injured when a toilet cistern fell on her as a result of vibrations from next door
Her claim in nuisance failed as she had no interest in the property she was merely a licensee

Question 4

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 4

reconfirmed decision in Malone v Laskey
Lord Lloyd said there were 3 types of private nuisance;
> encroachment e.g. trees
> physical injury to a neighbours land
> interference with a neighbours enjoyment of land e.g, sleep

Question 5

defendants

Answer 5

the person/organisation who is causing/allowing the nuisance on land owned/occupied by them

Question 7

Tetley v Chatty
even though occupier has not created the nuisance he might still be liable in law for authorising the nuisance

Answer 7

a council allowed a go-kart club use their land for a race track. Nearby residents said this was a nuisance
Council held liable for authorising activities
noise was ordinary and necessary with go-karts

Question 8

Sedleigh denfield v O’callaghan
where occupier didn’t create a nuisance but ‘adopted it’

Answer 8

local authority, without Ds knowledge, laid a pipe to get rid of water and a grate to get rid of leaves
The grater wasn’t placed properly + blocked up, causing flooding on neighbouring land, at this point the Ds knew of the pipe
Ds liable - an occupier who knows of danger + allows it to continue is liable , even if not created by themselves

Question 9

Leakey v National trust
nuisance is a result of natural causes

Answer 9

D owned land which there was a large hillside mound, they were aware it could slip + it did
It slid into Cs cottage, damaging it
Ds liable. They knew of possible slippage + failed to prevent it

Question 10

Anthony + others v Coal authority

Answer 10

Cs lived by an old coal tip, which caught fire spontaneously + burned for three years. They claimed nuisance
‘‘the creation of a state of affairs on the land, which at the time, was unforeseen + unforeseeable risk of damage to an neighbour is not nuisance”

Question 11

what will amount to an indirect interference?

Answer 11

> loud noises including gun fire (Hollywood silver fox farm)
fumes (bliss v hall)
vibrations from industrial machinery
running a brothel in a respectable residential area ( Thompson-schwab v costaki)

Question 12

certain activités have been held to be outside protection

Answer 12

Television reception - Hunter v Canary Wharf

Question 13

what will amount to unreasonable use of land?

Answer 13

is it reasonable for the C to have to suffer the particular interference?
court will look at a number of factors:
> locality
>duration of interference
>sensitivity of C
>malice
>social benefit

Question 14

Location

Answer 14

'’…what would be nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’’
will not apply where physical damage is caused rather than mere interference with comfort

Question 15

Sturges v Bridgman

Answer 15

A doctor built consulting rooms in his garden on the boundary to a sweet factory. He complained of vibrations from machinery.
The defence of prescription failed as the nuisance began when the consulting room was built

Question 16

Duration of the interference

Answer 16

should be continuous and unreasonable times of the day.

Question 17

Crown river cruises v Kimbolton fireworks

Answer 17

A river barge was set alight by flammable debris, from a 20 minute firework display
Even short-term activity can amount to a nuisance - physical damage

Question 18

The sensitivity of the Claimant

Answer 18

The C will not succeed if using his property for extra sensitive purposes

Question 19

Robinson v Kilvert

Answer 19

paper boxes were stored in hot and dry conditions which caused paper stored above them to dry out
unduly sensitive, a nuisance will not be found

Question 20

Network Rail v Morris
law moving towards a general test of foreseeability

Answer 20

C ran a recording studio situated 80metres from a main rail track. The circuit system generated an electro magnet which interfered with the use of a electric guitars
the use of amplified electric guitars fell into the category of extraordinary sensitive equipment

Question 21

malice

Answer 21

is the D trying to annoy C? a deliberately harmful act will normally be unreasonable behaviour and considered a nuisance

Question 22

Hollywood silver fox farm

Answer 22

Ds noise from a shotgun disrupted the breeding of foxes - deliberate unreasonable act, and amounted to a nuisance, it was done in malice

Question 23

Christie v Davey

Answer 23

the D was annoyed by his neighbours music and deliberately banged trays on the walls, blew whistles and shouted to disturb the neighbours
The D’s deliberate and malicious behaviour amounted to a nuisance

Question 24

social benefit

Answer 24

where the D is providing a benefit to the community, the court may be more willing to find the activity reasonable

Question 25

Bellew v Irish cement

Answer 25

only cement factory in Ireland was closed despite the urgent need for building at the time

Question 26

Miller v Jackson

Answer 26

Cs claimed the use of garden was disrupted by cricket balls - the cricket club had introduced measures to help. The use of the sports ground and benefit to the community outweighed the private benefit of the garden

Question 27

Adams v Ursell

Answer 27

D operated a fish and chip shop near Cs home - C claimed an intolerable smell+vapour cloud from the late morning to 10:30pm.
Smell was a nuisance - even though some benefit to the public an injunction was granted

Question 28

prescription (defence)

Answer 28

unique to nuisance.
defence if the action of the D has been carried out for 20 years + no complaint has been made in that time
must be between the same parties for this period

Question 29

Sturges v Bridgman (defence)

Answer 29

noise and vibration from the Ds sweet factory disrupted a doctors consulting rooms
they had been operation for 20 yrs - but not been a nuisance for 20 yrs

Question 30

statutory authority

Answer 30

a public body is allowed to cause a nuisance if it is acting in accordance with legislation

Question 31

Allen v Gulf oil refining

Answer 31

the D was given permission to build oil refinery by statute, but not operate it
residents complained about the smell and noise
statute covered it

Question 32

Marcia v Thames water
parliament has created an alternative remedy for the C

Answer 32

The Cs property was regularly flooded with sewage as the drains provided by Thames water were inadequate , due to population increase , but not priority for an upgrade
drains were properly maintained
claim should’ve been under water legislation

Question 33

planning permission

Answer 33

can in some circumstances act as lawful justification for the nuisance

Question 34

Gillingham Borough council v Medway Dock

Answer 34

a formal naval dockyard now run as a commercial port. HGVs using residential roads at night, disturbing local population
you must judge the area as it is now, after the planning permission has been granted

Question 35

Wheeler v Saunders
planning permission will need to change the character of the neighbourhood in order to operate as a defence

Answer 35

a pig farm was granted permission to expand by building two more pig houses , one pig house was only 11 metres from the cottage
the smell from the pigs - as the planning permission didn’t alter the nature of the neighbourhood this couldn’t be a defence for nuisance

Question 36

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 36

> an injunction could be a default order in a nuisance case
open to D to argue that an award of damages would be a suitable alternative
shelf test should be applied rigidly
injunction will not automatically be granted, even if the shelter test is satisfied

Question 37

injunction (remedies)

Answer 37

an injunction would be always positive in nature e.g. install sound roofing
Much more likely that damages will be awarded in nuisance claims

Question 38

shelfer test
damages should only be awarded over an injunction when;

Answer 38

> the injury to Cs rights was small
the C can be compensated by money
a small payment is adequate
unfair to D to grant an injunction

Question 39

abatement (remedies)

Answer 39

involve entering the Ds premises in order to prevent further nuisance.
For example, a C could enter Ds land in order to chop down overhanging branches although these would need to be returned to the D
unlikely