Private Nuisance Flashcards
Definition
An actionable private nuisance occurs where a persons use or enjoyment of their land is unlawfully interfered with by activities carried on by another person on their land
Who can sue
Private nuisance protects interests in and the enjoyment of land.
Malone v Laskey (1907)
Claimant lived with her husband who was a licensee
Vibrations from engine caused bracket to fall on claimant
Claim failed as she had no interest in the land
A02 point- Khorasandjian v Bush (1993)
Daughter living in parents house
Could be granted despite the fact that she had no interest in the land
Telephone calls
Hunter and others v Canary Wharf
Hunter and others v London Docklands Corporation (1997)
Two joined appeals
Television reception and damage caused by dust during construction of a road
Not successful
A claim in private nuisance will only lie at the suit of the person who has a right to the land affected
“Exclusive possession” principle
Tucker v Newman (1839)
Reversioner is the person the land will return after the expiration of the current occupiers interest
Nuisance will be permanent
House built on adjoining land- overhung allowing rain water to drop onto the property
Who can be sued?
The creator of the nuisance
Doesn’t need any interest in the land in which the nuisance takes place
Hussain v Lancaster City Council (2000)
Victims of extreme racial harassment by persons using the highway
COA = d not liable as it did not involve d’s use of their land
No legal interest in the highway
The occupier
Occupier of the premises from which the nuisance emanates will be liable for hay nuisance
Independent contractors
Trespassers
An act of nature
Independent contractor
Danger created
Bower v Peate (1876) demolish house- damage=liable
“Special danger” _ special risk that a nuisance may be caused to neighbours
Trespassers
Still liable if the ‘ nuisance’ is adopted by using the state of affairs for the occupiers own purpose
Or where the nuisance ‘continued’
Sedleigh-Denfield O’Callaghan(1940)
Ditch on boundary of claimants land
Trespasser put culvert in the ditch-no grid put to prevent rubbish where it served no useful purpose
3years- cleaned out twice
Heavy storm- blocked and flooded claimants land
That an occupier who knows for the potential for the creation of nuisance to exist
Even though the original act was not the present occupier
An act of nature
Goldman v Hargrave (1967)
Fire caused by lightening hitting a gum tree
Sections left to burn out itself
Weather deteriorated and fire reignited causing damage to the claimants land
Defendant owed the claimant a duty to get rid of the nuisance which he ought to have been aware arose from the natural state of affairs on his land
Leakey v National Trust (1980)
Defendants owned a hill known as Barrow anymore
Claimants homes were at the foot of the hill
Hill would slip as a result of the action of the weather on the type of clay
Slips occurred to claimants land
Known 8 years
Where a potential nuisance exists resulting from an act of nature and the defendant was aware of the danger, it would be an injustice were the occupier not to be under a duty to ameliorate the nuisance
Do what is reasonable in the circumstances
Landlords
Tenant and landlord have liability
Landlord who authorises the activity which creates the nuisance will be liable, if the nuisance is an inevitable result of the permitted activity
Tetley and Others v Chitty and Others (1980)
Premises were leased for the purpose of a go-karting club
Noise was a natural and necessary consequence of the use of the go-karts
The landlords was liable for the nuisance which had been authorised
3 elements must be proved
Unlawful, unreasonable use of land
Which causes indirect interference
With another’s land
Unlawful use of land
Everyone has the right to use their land for their own purposes
Foreseeability
Southwark London Borough Council v Mills and Others
Baxter v Camden London Borough Council (1999)
Lived in a block of flats owned by the councils
Soundproof was shit
Elements
Locality
Duration
Malice
Sensitivity of the claimant
Locality
Where the activity occurs is important
Duration
For an activity to amount to a nuisance it must be continuous
Temporary doesn’t mean that it cannot amount to a nuisance
Extent of the interference is very relevant
Andraee v Selfridge and Co ltd (1937)
Demolition work- excessive amount of noise and dust which interfered with the business of the hotel
Building work was not unreasonable
Excessive interference with the business meant that damages were payable
Injunctions will be granted where there is temporary interference can reasonably be dealt with or avoided
Malice
In nuisance the defendants motive if it can be characterised as ill-will or spite, may result in the court regarding what would otherwise be a reasonable activity as unreasonable in the circumstances and therefore a nuisance
Christie v Daley (1893)
C taught music- musical family
Heard in D’s house
In retaliation D banged trays and beat on the wall to distract the claimant
Purposeful =liable for malice
Sensitivity of the claimant
Nuisance only operates to protect the claimants reasonable use of their land
Where the use to which the claimant outs the land is unusually sensitive to things such as heat or fumes the defendant will not be liable
Robinson v Kilvert (1889)
Brown paper stored on the ground floor of a warehouse
Need particular conditions for it not to deteriorate
Heat from the basement used by the defendant seeped into the ground floor and caused damage to the paper
No nuisance
The heating would not have caused problems for ordinary use of premises
Particular character of paper stores that led to the damage
Network v Rail Infrastructure v Morris (2004)
Recording studio close to a railway line
D installed new track circuits which interfered with the claimants amplification system and caused the claimant to lose business as a result
D not Liable
It was not forseeable that the installation would interfere with the claimants use of land in such a way
Indirect interference
Consequences suffered by the claimant are the indirect result of the defendants activity or the state of affairs on the defendants land
Defences
Prescription
Statutory consent
Planning consent
Prescription
It is possible for a person to obtain a prescriptive right to carry out an activity that in the eyes of some amounts to a private nuisance
The activity complained of must have been continuously carried on for at least 20 years
Actionable as a private nuisance with nobody taking action
Care should be taken in relation to this defence
Needs a neighbour who would have complained
Sturges v Bridgman (1879)
More than 20 years a confectioner had carried out a business using a industrial pestle and mortar to grind sugar
Linked with doctor
Noise+ vibration meant new consulting room could not be used
Injunction placed cos room just built alloying prescriptive right to exist
Statutory Authority
Commercial enterprises and public utilities needing specific legislation
Redevelopment of the Docklands, Channel Tunnel, hsr tunnel and London
Other laws -environmental mean he may be needed
However the defence may not be available if discretion to the act is exercised improperly
Metropolitan Asylum District Hospital v Hill (1881)
Smallpox hospital
Not available d as sited in area that could cause a nuisance
Planning permission
Is granted by local authorities by using delegated statutory powers
Those making the decisions are the elected representatives of the local community
Suitability of proposals for the particular area
Locality considered
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd (1993)
Council alleged a public nuisance was being caused by the operation of a former naval dockyard as a commercial enterprise
Heavy goods vehicles disturbing local population at night
Planning permission given with knowledge
1 entrance causing issue
Activities can’t involve nuisance
Wheeler and Another v JJ Saunders and Others (1996)
Claimants bought a farmhouse on land next to farmland and got planning permission to convert outbuildings into holiday Homes
D got 2 pig housing units with planning permission
Smell made nuisance
But d said they had planning permission so no nuisance could be actionable
Law
Consent granted for a development meaning a change in locality an actionable nuisance will not arise provided done with reasonable care
Not always a defence
Remedies
Injunctions
Where a nuisance is continuing or likely to recur.
Should be granted unless the injury suffered by the claimant is trivial or temporary in nature
Activity is an isolated incident or so irregular that any injury can be compensated with damages
Swaine v Great Northern Railway (1864)
Manure heaps generally caused no trouble but intermittently became offensive when removal was delayed and dead dogs and cats were found in the heap.
Problem was occasional making the problem inappropriate
Those inconvenienced were awarded damages
Miller v Jackson (1977)
Cricket ground used for 70+ years when a new housing estate was built
Houses so close that balls fell in gardens
Claimants said nuisance and negligence
Majority found a nuisance but damages awarded
Kennaway v Thompson (1980)
Land she knew used for water sports for last 10 years
Expanded to world class events with noisier boats
Too loud to tolerate
Refused but COA found that it was bound by Shelfer v City of London Electric lighting unless small, injunction applied
1 annual event over 3 days
3 club events lasting 1day spread 4 weeks apart
Power of boats used and number f water skiing boats at any time
Damages
Claimant able to recover damages for any loss which had occurred in the value of the land and for any physical consequences of the nuisance or business loss
Uncertainty over personal injury claims
Because of Hunter v Canary Wharf where not awarded
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003)
Rylands v Fletcher (1868)
Abatement
Right to take action to reduce or eliminate nuisance
If they need access to property they must let them know
Not cause unnecessary damage
Serious risk of damage to people or property action must be taken without notice
Coming to a nuisance
Without prescription applying time makes no difference to nuisance
Bliss v Hall (1838)
Tallow-chandlery nuisance
Emitting noisome, noxious and offensive vapours, fumes and smells and stenches
3 years no defence
Social utility
Doesn’t matter if helps locals
Adams v Ursell ((1913)
Fried fish shop closed
Where it was situated
Great hardship to d and poor people was irrelevant
