private nuisance Flashcards
malone v laskey
FACTS
a company rented a house for a manager to live in. The managers wife was injured when a bracket in a toilet fell on her head due to the vibrations of machinery on ds propety
malone v laskey
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
the court decided that she had no interest in the property but her husband did as the tenant but she didnt as the family member can no longer claim for personal injury
robinson v kilvert
FACTS
c was making special brown paper in their propety. D was heating using their boiler and heating their propety and this was spoiling cs paper. c brought nuisance claim but it failed
robinson v kilvert
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
the court found there was no private nuisance as d was using their property in a lawful way and c was carrying out an unusually sensitive trade
halsey v esso petroleum
FACTS
c owned a house nearby ds oil depot ds oil depot contained steam boilers that emitted acid smut damaging cs car and washing. it also kept c up all night as the trucks where constantly moving and making noise
halsey v esso petroleum
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
the smell was held to be a nuisance. The courts also considered the time and day of ds action
st helens smelting co v tipping
FACTS
the vapours from ds factory caused physical damage to cs propety. The factory was located near many other factories that also emitted vapours in an industrial area
st helens smelting co v tipping
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
although the character of the area is an important factor, it wont prevent a successful claim in nuisance where there is physical damage to the propety
hollywood silver fox farm v emmett
FACTS
c owned a fox farm. D was deliberately firing a shot gun to disturb the foxes when they where breeding. C sued in nuisance
holywood silver fox farm v emmett
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
c was entitled to an injunction and damages even though ds use of land wasnt necessarily unreasonable and keeping foxes for fur farming may not e an ordinary use as d had acted maliciously
miller v jackson
FACTS
c was a neighbour to a cricket ground established for 70 years. Damage was caused to cs propety as balls kept escaping. claim wasnt successful due to the public benefit
miller v jackson
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
the social benefit of the cricket outweighed the damaged caused by the balls being hit out of the ground. No injunction but damages awarded
cambridge water co v eastern counties leather
FACTS
d used the chemical PCE in their trade. small spillages of it meant there was an accumulation of it under the land which carried by way of underground waterflow to cs borehole several miles away polluting it
allen v gulf refining
FACTS
c brought an action for the smell noise and vibration from the oil refinery constructed on ds land constructing it was authorized by an act of parliament
allen v gulf refining
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
d not liable defence stood
