Private Nuisance Flashcards
Introduce Private Nuisance.
- Concerns people living in proximity to one another.
- Involves competing claims of people to do as they wish on their land.
- Strict liability tort- need not go through breach or damage.
- Private Nuisance defined as: ‘an unlawful indirect interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land coming from a neighbouring land’.
Explain the Parties To An Action, with regards to Private Nuisance.
- Anyone who uses/enjoys land + is affected by an interference may claim.
- C must have interest in land (i.e owner, tenant, but not member of owner’s family who has no legal interest)
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd: C must have interest in land. Members of household who don’t have interest in can’t claim.
- Tetley v Chitty: D (person causing, or allowing nuisance) can be sued.
- D who’s causing nuisance doesn’t have to have interest in land.
Adopting Nuisance: (only mention if applicable)
* Where occupier isn’t responsible themselves for creating nuisance, may still be liable, by failing to deal with problem. Even if caused by previous owner/trespasser.
* Sedleigh Denfield: HofL decided that: occupier who knows of danger + allows it to continue is liable, even if hasn’t created danger themselves.
Natural Cause: (only mention if applicable)
* Leakey v National Trust: D liable where nuisance is result of natural cause which they were aware of but failed to deal with.
Explain the Elements Of Private Nuisance.
Indirect Interference:
* D didn’t try to cause interference, but actions result in interference to C.
Decide Which Is The Indirect Interference: (pick 1)
Loss Of Amenity: (usually this)
Includes: fumes, smells, noise
Material Damage:
Damage by nuisance
Includes: vibrations, hot air rising, fire, cricket balls into gardens
Interferences Not Allowed To Be Claimed For:
* Right to view
* Right to light
* Right to television reception
* Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd: confirmed Tv reception can’t amount to an interference.
Unlawful: (unreasonable)
* C must prove D’s activity amounts to an unlawful use (unreasonable) of land.
* Courts consider whether it’s reasonable for C to have suffered particular interference or whether it’s excessive.
* To establish if it’s unreasonable/unlawful consider factors of reasonableness.
Explain the Factors Of Reasonableness, with regards to Private Nuisance.
Liability: (always reasonable)
* Use of the land in area it is situated. Character of neighbourhood considered.
* Sturges v Bridgman: ‘what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square wouldn’t necessarily be so in Bermondsey’.
* Ray v Windrush Riverside Properties (2022): confirmed location/area must be considered + will be influential as to if this is a nuisance.
Duration Of Interference: (always applicable)
* Spicer Bros: Interference likely continuous + carried out at unreasonable hours of the day.
* Jalla v Shell International (2023): Supreme Court confirmed activity must be a continuing nuisance, that must be repeated + not a one off.
Sensitivity Of Claimant:
* Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris: Law on nuisance moving away from idea of ‘abnormality sensitivity’ to a general test of foreseeability. Would reasonable person be annoyed?
Malice:
* Hollywood Silver Fox Farm: deliberately harmful act will normally be unreasonable behaviour + considered a nuisance.
Social Benefit:
* Miller v Jackson: If D’s providing benefit to community, actions may be considered reasonable.
* Fearn v Tate Gallery (2023): interference assessed must be objective, against ordinary average person in C’s position.
Explain the Defence of Prescription, with regards to Private Nuisance.
- Defence to nuisance action if action’s been carrying on for 20+ years with no complaint between parties.
- Coventry v Lawrence: if so, D may have prescriptive right to continue.
Explain the Defence of Consent (Volenti Non Fit Injura), with regards to Private Nuisance.
Subjective- takes into account factors.
* Full defence, C accepts voluntary assumption of risk of harm.
To succeed D has to show:
1) Knowledge of the precise risk involved
2) Exercies of free choice by C
3) Voluntary acceptance of risk
* S.149 Road Traffic Act 1998: defence can’t be used for road traffic accidents- as of 3rd party insurance.
* Stermer v Lawson: defence wont apply merely because C knows of existence of risk; must have full understanding of nature of actual risk.
* Smith v Baker: wont succeed where C has no choice but to accept risk.
* Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Royal + Maudsley Hospitals: consent relevant in medical claims.
* If C acts against employers orders + is injured, defence likely to succeed
Explain the Defence of Moving To The Nuisance, with regards to Private Nuisance.
- Sturges v Bridgman: D may argue C’s only suffering nuisance as they’ve moved closer to alleged problem.
- Wont give defence to D- rejected by court.
Explain the Defence of Statutory Authority, with regards to Private Nuisance.
(Only applicable to businesses)
* D saying he’s been given a license/legal permission to do what he’s doing.
Explain the Remedies available, with regards to Private Nuisance.
Injunctions:
* Order made by the courts to stop doing something, + if D fails to follow terms of injunction, they’ll be in contempt of court- can be punished with a fine, or imprisonment (max 2 years).
* Injunction can also be ordered during the case (e.g. to disclose documents)
* Perpetual Injunction (Final Order)- most common type of injunction, ordered in cases such as those involving a nuisance to ensure the person doesn’t continue to cause a nuisance, includes banning an activity outright, banning an activity within certain hours.
* Mandatory Injunction- less common form, orders a party to carry out a certain action (e.g. to install sound proofing in a nuisance action).
Injunctions often are the main reason a nuisance case is brought to court, aim of taking the action is to stop the nuisance continuing.
* Coventry v Lawrence: fewer injunctions will be granted, + damages will become a more common alternative remedy.
Damages:
* State damages as a remedy to a successful claim against nuisance.
Abatement:
* Involves entering D’s premises to prevent further nuisance.
