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