Private Nuisance Flashcards
What is private nuisance?
A tort against land that protects a person’s right to use and enjoy their land without unreasonable interference.
What does coventry v lawrence tell us about what is actionable in nuisance?
Noise from a nearby stadium was a private nuisance, right to quiet enjoyment
Fearn v Tate Gallery type of nuisance
Visual intrusion counts
What does Coventry tell us about coming to nuisance?
It’s not a defence that the claimant moved to the area knowing about the nuisance. If the interference is unreasonable, the claim can succeed.
What test was set out in Fearn?
There must be substantial interference with ordinary use (lowered threshold). Courts assess this objectively, focusing on the effect on land use.
What does Davies v Bridgen say about causation?
Claimant must prove factual causation using standard rules.
What is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Liability for escape of dangerous things due to non-natural use of land. No need to prove fault.
How did Transco limit the scope of Rylands
Personal injury alone is not enough under Rylands v Fletcher.
What does Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] tell us?
Interference must affect the use or enjoyment of land; loss of TV signal was not enough.
Williams v Network Rail type of nuisance
Vibrations from railway track constituted nuisance. Nuisance can include intangible interferences, like noise or vibration.
What is common and ordinary use of land?
A defendant is not liable if their use is ordinary and reasonable in the context of the locality.
What does coventry tell us about locality and planning permission?
Planning permission may affect the locality of an area, but does not authorise nuisance. The court still decides if the use is unreasonable.
What does Christine v Davey say about malice?
Malicious intent (e.g. banging pots to disturb neighbour’s music) can turn an otherwise reasonable act into a nuisance.
What does coventry say about remedies?
Injunctions are the primary remedy, but courts may award damages instead if appropriate. Planning permission can lead to damages instead of injunctions. Courts weigh property rights vs business impact.
How would I answer a problem question on nuisance?
1) is the damage actionable in nuisance? think about Property damage vs PEL, and whether PEL was consequential to interference and therefore actionable
2) Fearn test (discuss controvery around it) substantial interference and common and ordinary use
3) does it align with any other fact patterns
4) nature and locality
5) other considerations/defences
6) remedies
How was sensitive use of land by claimants explored in Robinson v Kilvert?
Facts: Heat from D’s factory upstairs caused storage of brown paper to be damaged in C’s flat.
D’s actions were reasonable and not unusual. Heat from factory would not have damaged normal paper. Brown paper was particularly sensitive to heat, which was the reason for damage, not claimants actions, no nuisance.
What did St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping say about locality?
D’s smelting long operating factory discharged noxious gases, which were a normal part of the operation. Trees on the claimant’s land were damaged by the fumes and noxious gases.
- Claim successful, no defence of coming to nuisance.
- Locality matters if damage is loss of amenities and discomfort, but this was case of physical property damage, making locality irrelevant.
What did Barr v Biffa Waste say about interference?
D obtained a new permit allowing them to use the site tip a new kind of pre-treated waste. C complained that there had been a strong odour coming from the site since new waste. Court said:
Something is a nuisance if it goes beyond what a normal person would consider reasonable to put up with. factors:
o The severity of the interference (by reference to the standards of average people);
o The character of the neighbourhood; and
o The duration of the interference.
- Statutory authority could be a defence to nuisance, but only if the statute authorised that precise nuisance.
What did Bradford Corp v Pickles say about malice?
Qualified Christie v Davey, Motive alone won’t create liability, but maliciously amplifying an interference that would otherwise be borderline can tip it into nuisance.
How did Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett affect Robinson v Kilvert?
D intentionally attempted to frighten the unusually sensitive foxes through the firing of his gun on his own land.
Intent changed the application of Robinson v Kilvert.
What does Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc establish about causation?
Foreseeability of type of damage and remoteness principles are generally similar across negligence, nuisance and Rylands.
How did Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd limit actions in nuisance?
The harm must be ongoing or repeated, not a single incident. Can sue the operator.
What did Leakey v National Trust say about who you can sue in nuisance?
occupier who knows about a nuisance (even natural) and fails to take reasonable steps to stop it can be sued.
What did Cocking v Eacott say about suing landlords?
A landlord can be liable only if:
1. They created the nuisance
2. They authorised it
3. They retained control of the property
