Private Nuisance Flashcards by jake richards

Who can sue?

Hunter v Canary Wharf

The claimant must have a proprietary interest and exclusive possession

Ie an owner-occupier
Children do not have rights
Guests do not have rights

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Definition of private nuisance?

An unlawful interference with a persons use and enjoyment of land

Read v Lyons

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Can a tenant sue?

Yes.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What about a landlord who has parted with possession to a tenant?

They can sue in private nuisance if permanent damage is being done to his property. I.e. Vibrations causing structural damage

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What about a wife?

No - they can’t sure. Malone v Laskey

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What about article 8 human rights act?

Dobson v Thomas water utilities found that further compensation due to interference in Article 8 was not necessary.

However - marcic v Thames water utilities suggested it could in the future. Leaves opinion open.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Who can be sued?

Usually the occupier.

But can be the creator of the nuisance if land now occupied by somebody else

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What special examples of occupier’s liability in private nuisance are relevant here?

Employee - vicarious liability for the employer

Independent contractor - provided the work carried out is a special danger of the nuisance being created

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Cases for special occupier liability for private nuisance?

Natural events - Leakey v National Trust

Visitors - liplatt v South Gloucestershire

Predecessors in name - St Anne’s Well Brewery v Roberts Title

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Can a landlord still be liable?

Ni general rule is the tenant is liable

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Exceptions - when landlord liable?

Where landlord has expressly or impliedly authorised the nuisance.

Tetley v Chitty

Nuisance begun before letting and ought to have known about it

Landlord had promised to make repairs but didnt

Payne v Rogers

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

But if the landlord is liable, does that mean the tenant gets off?

No - both still liable

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is an interference?

3 types Hunter v Canary Wharf

Encroachment
Direct physical injury to land
Loss of amenity

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What are the two cases regarding loss of amenity that will give your answer so flavour and colour…?

Loss of amenity does not cover ‘dainty modes of living’ - (Walter v selfie)

The loss of a view is not actionable - Alfred’s case

Hunter v canary wharf -
TV signal is not actionable

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What does unlawful mean?

‘Substantial and unreasonable’

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’callaghan

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Factors the court take into account…

Duration/frequency
Excessive ness of conduct
Character of neighbourhood
Abnormal sensitivity
Malice
Public duty

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Duration/frequency

The longer the interference has lasted the more likely it is that the court will consider the interference unreasonable.

Isolated occurances can be actionable if it emanates from some continuing state of affairs. Spicer v smee

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Excessiveness of conduct

Matania v National Park

How far removed from normal behaviour is it? — OBJECTIVE TEST

Interference to land is nearly always excessive!

How far does it affect the claimant?
SUBJECTIVE TEST

Character of neighbourhood

Sturges v Bridgeman ‘what would be a nuisance in Belgravia Square would not necessarily be so in Bemondsey’

Halsey v Esso -
Character of neighbour good ONLY taken into account in relation to loss of amenity. Not interference of damage or
Encroachment

Abnormal sensitivity

Extension of the egg-shell skull rule.

A claimant must prove that the interference in question would have affected a normal person. Robinson v Kilbert

If they can prove this, they can then recover for all loss, even with abnormal sensitivity.

Mcinnon Industries v Walker

Malice

If a claimant can show malice - this usually tips the case in their favour - Hollywood silver fox farm v Emmett

Public duty

Rarely a relevant factor! Although may be useful when considering an injunction

What damage is recoverable?

Nuisance is not a tort which is actionable per se, so the claimant must prove that he has suffered damage.

Hunter v canary wharf says:
Can recover for any physical damage, interference with quiet enjoyment of land, and any consequential economic loss, which has flowed from damage to property and personal discomfort (andreae v selfridge) Lord Hoffmab!

Why is not recoverable in private nuisance?

Personal injury
Personal belongs - although Halsey v Esso suggests some remedies for damage to belongings flowing straight from nuisance may be possible.

Remoteness and causation

Same as negligence | Cambridge waters

Defence: prescription

Sturges v Bridgeman This defence arises if D can show he has been continuing the nuisance for 20 years against the claimant. But must be for 20 years against this particular claimant -ie the claimant must have suffered for 20 years

Defence: statutory authority

Allen v Golf Oil Sometimes a statute will permit a defendant to commit a nuisance if they can prove that their nuisance was an inevitable consequence of the statutory act

Defence: contributory negligence

Same principles apply

Defence: consent

Has the claimant clearly accepted the interference?

Defence: act of god

Wringe v Cohen When interference on the defendants land results from a secret unobservable process of nature.

Ineffective defence - claimant came to the nuisance

Miller v Jackson It's no defence just because somebody buys a house near a noisy factory.

Ineffective defence - public interest

Not a defence though may consider when granting an injunction. Miller v Jackson Kennaway

Ineffective defence: contributory actions of others

It's no defence that the nuisance involves separate individual actions

Ineffective defence: planning permission

Only parliament can take away price rights - therefore planning permission which is granted by a LA does not legitimise a nuisance. Wheeler v Saunders But - grant of planning permission does change the character of the the neighbourhood. Planning permission to turn X into X makes the character of the neighbourhood like x GILLINGHAN

Damages - whats the deal?

Awarded for any loss suffered before the trial For physical damage to c's land - damages will reflect the cost of repairing the damages or if this is not possible the loss in value of the land

How do they award damages for personal discomfort?

Hunter v canary wharf Hoffman suggested that personal discomfort should be valued by looking at the loss of amenity value of the land in question Ie the land with the nuisance being worth less than the land without the nuisance.

Injunctions! Equitable and discretionary remedy.

Injunctions will not be awarded where damages is adequate compensation or a claimant can seek an injunction but ultimately a decision for the court.

Prohibitory

Stops D acting in some way. Most common

What is a mandatory injunction?

It orders a defendant to take positive action

Quia timet injunction? What is that?

It's an injunction in anticipation of a tort - and is quite rare * claimant must be almost certain to incur damage without the injunction * such damage is imminent * D will not stop his conduct without an injunction

When injunctions are being considered....how do the courts take into account public benefit?

Miller v Jackson - injunction was refused because the public interest of playing cricket should prevail over private interests (Lord Denning made famous dissenting judgement - saying there should be no damages at all) Kenaway v Thompson. Public benefit of the power boat racing was not sufficient to deprive claimant of an injunction

Damages in lieu of an injunction

Powers deprive from the Chancery Amendment Act 1858 C will get damages for all loss - both past and present

Whats the case and tests for damages in lieu of an injunction

Shelfer v City of London 1. Case is suitable for an injunction 2. If so, damages in lieu will be granted if the injury to c's legal rights is small. 3. One that can be estimated and adequately compensated by money 4 and an injunction would be over oppressive

Whats abatement?

Involves The claimant removing the nuisance themselves. Claimant must give notice - or they don't have to enter their land or it's an emergency. Cutting down over hanging branches would count lemon v Webb They must be returned back to the neighbour mills v brooker