Private nuisance

Question 1

Nuisance outline

Answer 1

• intro
• parties
• interference
• unlawful?
• defences
• conclusion + remedies

Question 2

intro

Answer 2

• a use of land which substantially interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of neighbouring land, judged by the standards of an ordinary person -> Feam v Tate Gallery

Question 3

Parties- claimant

Answer 3

• Claimant = requires a legal interest in the land -> cannot be guest or employee -> usually owner or tenant
• Hunter v Canary Wharf -> owners and tenants legal right but not family members

Question 4

Parties Defendant

Answer 4

• Create nuisance or allowed it to continue
• tetley v chitty -> local authority allowed go-karting
• A person liable for nuisance he didnt create, if he adopts the activity in question (Sadleigh Denfield v o’callaghan)
• result of natural causes if aware of nuisance + fail to deal with (Leakey v National Trust)
• D doesnt need interest in land when nuisance occurs (Anthony v Coal Authority)

Question 5

interference

Answer 5

• physical damage - St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping or Haley v Esso -> generally regarded as unlwaful
• loss of amenity(Bone v Seal) (Williams V Network rail)
• must relate to use & enjoyment of land (hunter v Canary wharf) - interfere w/ tv reception not actionable nuissance as other forms of reception acailable
• interference must be indirect - visual intrusion can ammount (Fearn v tate gallery)
• cannot claim PI

Question 6

unlawful interference

Answer 6

• D more than common use of land
• Character or locality (Sturges V Bridgman - uncommon) (Kaws V Florinplace - uncommon)
• special sensitivity of D irrelevant (Robinson V Kilvert) - damage forseeable (Network Rail V Morris)?
• • activity conveniently done*
• De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros - intefere sleep
• Barr v Biffa - many ocassions
• can arise single act -> physical damage -> Crown River Cruises V Kimbolton fireworks

Question 7

factors to consider if inteference unlawful

Answer 7

• Locality
• duration and Extent
• PD always ulawful
• social utility affect remedy only (Fearn v Tate gallery/Miller V Jackson)
• malice ( Christie V Davey)
• Special sensitivity (irrelevant)

Question 8

Defences

Answer 8

• Prescription
• Statutory authority

Question 9

prescription

Answer 9

• carried out activity causing nuisance for 20 yrs and D has not complained - ‘prescriptive right’ (starts when D affected by nuisance) (Sturges V Bridgman)
• cannot argue because D moved to nuisance (Miller V Jackson) (Coventry v lawrense)

Question 10

Statutory authority

Answer 10

• actionable nuisance created by public body acting under statutory authority (Allen V Gulf Oil)

Question 11

Planning permission (something to consider)

Answer 11

• doesnt meant that the activity is not a nuisance
• planning permission more likely damages awrdded rather than injuction
• if planning permmission altrs locality
  (Gillingham BC v Medway) - question if ordinary use of land

Question 12

remedies

Answer 12

• injunction
• Damages
• Abatement

Question 13

injunction

Answer 13

– prohibiting/controlling an activity
- kennaway v thompson - llimited activity

Question 14

damages

Answer 14

• physical damage
• loss of amenity - considering reduction in value of land/ loss of business
• punitive (rare) court disapproves with D’s Behaviour

Question 15

abatement

Answer 15

• claimant can take reasonable steps to deal w/ nuisance themselves