Private nuisance Flashcards
what is meant by private nuisance?
Private nuisance occurs when there is an unlawful interference with another person’s use or enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land
What must the claimant demonstrate to bring a private nuisance claim? & case
The claimant must have a legal interest in the land (e.g., ownership or tenancy).
Case: Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) – Claimants without a legal interest, such as family members living in the property, cannot bring a claim
What must the D demonstrate to bring a private nuisance claim?
Must create/cause or allow the nuisance to occur.
If it’s a naturally occurring nuisance D is still liable if they know and do nothing about it.
Case that confirms D’s nuisance
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)
The defendant was liable. An occupier may be liable for the acts of a trespasser if they adopt or continue the nuisance
First element of private nuisance
- Unreasonable use of the land
What does unreasonable use of the land mean?
- The D is using their land in such an unreasonable way that it is deemed unlawful.
The ‘common and ordinary’ use of land will be considered
1st factor in determining whether D’s use of the land is unreasonable? & case
Locality - The area will be considered to determine if the D’s use of land is unreasonable according to the character of the surrounding area
Fearne v Tate Gallery - viewing gallery had caused a substantial interference with the ordinary use and enjoyment of the claimants’ property
2nd factor in determining whether D’s use of the land is unreasonable? & case
Duration - Increased duration / repetition / timing of an interference increases the likelihood of unreasonableness.
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd (1996):
Some burning debris from the display landed on a nearby barge which caught fire. The defendant was liable despite the nuisance only lasting twenty minutes
3rd factor determining whether D’s use of the land was unreasonable & case
Sensitivity – Nuisance is judged according to the ordinary man. Where this would not be a nuisance to the majority of the population the claim is likely to be unsuccessful
Pusey v Somerset County Council (2012)
actionable case in nuisance there must be a real interference with the comfort or convenience of living according to the standards of the average person. Abnormal sensitivity to noise or the other matters complained of is not therefore sufficient to find a cause of action
4th factor that determines whether D’s use of the land was unreasonable & case
- Motive of the defendant – Where it can be proven that a D is using their land in order to purposefully disturb or harm a neighbour, this significantly increases the likelihood of a finding of unreasonable use.
- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)
The defendant was liable despite the abnormal sensitivity of the foxes because he was motivated by malice.
2nd element of private nuisance
- Leading to an indirect interference
- The interference must be indirect, this means that the D is not directly interfering with land themselves
Under the 2nd element, what are two ways indirect interference can occur?
- Physical damage to land or property
St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) – Physical damage to plants from fumes - Loss of amenity (use or enjoyment of land)
Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (1961) – Noise and odours affected residential enjoyment
3rd element of private nuisance
- With the claimant’s use or enjoyment of land
What can the C claim for? What can they not?
Can claim for - Property damage (smoke, fires, flooding)
Loss of amenity (Noise, smells, vibrations, or excessive light making it difficult to enjoy the property)
Cannot claim for - Personal injury, Right to view, Pure economic loss
Case for 3rd element of PN
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)
Loss of television reception caused by the construction of the Canary Wharf tower did not constitute private nuisance because it did not involve a direct or physical interference with the land
