Private Nuisance Flashcards
define the tort of nuisance
an unlawful indirect interference for a substantial length of time with a person’s right to enjoy his land in a reasonable way
who can the claimant be?
c must have a proprietary interest in the land, so covers the owner and an occupier who has a lease or tenancy of the land. won’t cover a licensee.
malone v laskey- tenant can bring claim but not family
c was injured due to negligence of adjoining property n she sued in nuisance. unsuccessful bc of that n the fact that she didn’t have a proprietary interest in the house, her husband was a mere licensee.
hunter v canary wharf
tv reception affected by construction. not a nuisance bc recreational facility w a view.
who can be the defendant? n case example
the creator of the nuisance can be the d whether or not they’re also the occupier/owner of the land. e.g. southport corp v esso: oil from tanker accidentally leaked n went onto c’s lake which had to close n money spent on. at appeal d was liable in negligence and public nuisance.
what case shows that even though an occupier hasn’t created the nuisance they might still be liable for authorising it?
teller v chitty- local authority which allowed go kart racing on its land was held liable for a nuisance.
what case shows an occupier who doesn’t create but adopts a nuisance can still be liable?
sedleigh denfield v o callaghan- d were liable bc an occupier who knows of a danger n allows it to continue is liable. monk’s known (blocked) pipe flooding case
what case shows a occupier can still be liable even if the nuisance is the result of natural causes n they’ve done nothing about it?
leakey v national trust- d owned land w a natural mound, aware that it could slip, n in summer it slipped damaging c’s cottage. d’s were liable bc they knew about it.
what does the case anthony n others v coal authority say abt defendants?
can still be liable if nuisance bc of natural causes isn’t taken care of. coal authority of former coal mine (they sold) were liable bc they were aware of the problem when they had control of land n failed to prevent it
what can (5) and can’t (1) amount to a indirect interference?with cases
noise- hollywood v silver fox farm v emmett
vibrations n noise- sturges v Bridgman
cricket balls- miller v jackson
encroachment- davey v harrow corp
smell/fumes- bliss v hall
NOT tv reception- hunter v canary wharf
what are the 3 types of nuisance set out by lord lloyd in hunter v canary wharf?
encroachment- e.g. tree roots, branches on trees
physical injury/ to a neighbours land
interference w a neighbours enjoyment of land (loss of amenity)
what must be explained alongside interference w enjoyment?
interference must never unlawful and unreasonable
what 5 factors need to be considered when the courts asks whether the d’s activity is foreseeably likely to cause a nuisance (unreasonable)? with cases?
locality- sturges v bridgman
duration- crown river cruises v kimbolton fireworks
degree of interference- halsey
sensitivity of the claimant- robinson v gilbert, network rail v morris
reason for d’s activity- miller v jackson, adam v ursell
malice- hollywood silver fox farm v emmett, christie v davey
what does interference need to cause n when will there be no liability in nuisance?
interference must cause physical damage or loss of amenity n if damage wasn’t reasonably foreseeable there’ll be no liability in nuisance
what are the 3 main defences to nuisance n case examples?
statutory authority- public body allowed to cause a nuisance in accordance with legislation. d may be able to escape liability in nuisance if park has created an alternative remedy for c. eg. allen v gulf oil, marcic v thames water
prescription- d has need carrying out the activities for the last 20yrs therefore over time they’ve become legal. activity must’ve been a nuisance 4 20yrs. eg. sturges v bridgman
planning permission- granted by local authority, careful investigations into rights n expectations of those in the community. offers some protection to the d’s but often not full. MUSTNT be a change in the character of the neighbourhood(gillingham). eh. wheeler v saunders, watson v croft
