Private Nuisance Flashcards
The relevant area of law here is private nuisance which is…
“an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land”
Anyone who has…
an interest in the land can sue. This is usually the occupier. (Apply)
Anyone who causes…
a nuisance is liable and can be sued. An occupier is only liable for a nuisance he personally creates, but also for a nuisance created by his employees, family, guests or an independent contractor employed by him. (Apply)
Not all land interference is…
a nuisance, the interference must be unlawful meaning it is unreasonable. The court will consider if whether “in all of the circumstances is it reasonable for the claimant to have to suffered the particular interference?”
There are various factors…
that can be used when considering whether the interference is unreasonable. First is malice or motive. If D deliberately does something out of malice it can make the activity unlawful: Christie v Davey. (Apply)
If it can be shown that the claimant is particularly sensitive…
then there may not be a nuisance. The court will consider whether the nuisance was foreseeable:Network Rail v Morris. (Apply)
Location is relevant as…
things are acceptable in different localities. There are 4 localities industrial, commercial, residential and rural. The “character of the neighbourhood” should be considered, and claims tend to succeed when D is the odd one out: Halsey v Esso. (Apply)
The duration of the harm and the time of day/week is…
important to the claim. The more often something happens, the more likely it is to be a nuisance. To be actionable, the interference is likely to be continuous and at unreasonable hours of the day: Barr (Apply)
If it can be considered that D is providing a…
benefit to the community, the court may consider their actions reasonable: Miller v Jackson. (Apply) Then successful/unsuccessful
If C was able to claim…
then there would be defences available. Statutory Authority (same as Roland’s), consent, the nuisance may be legalised by C tolerating the activity for more than 20 years without complaint. However, the 20 years does not begin to run until the activity starts to constitute a nuisance and will be reset every time a new person moves in: Sturges v Bridgman. (apply)
If successful the court may…
award damages to compensate for the noise and possibly an injunction to limit the times the activity can operate
