Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort > Private nuisance > Flashcards

Private nuisance Flashcards

1
Q

Definition

A

Read v Lyons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Recoverable damage: land and enjoyment but nit PI

A

Hunter v Canary Wharf

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Economic loss consequential on hunter is recoverable

A

Andreae v selfridge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Standing: right to exclusive possession

A

Hunter b Canary Wharf

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Wife and children of owner have no standing

A

Malone v laskey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Occupier liable for specially dangerous work by independent contractors

A

Matania v national provincial bank

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Occupier - adopted or created nuisance by VISITOR

A

Lippiat v Gloucestershire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Predecessors in title

A

St Anne’s well brewery trust v Roberts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Natural events liability for occupiers

A

Leakey v national trust

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

“Adopt” or “create”

A

Sedleigh-denfield v o’callaghan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Landlord liable or implied or express authorised nuisances

A

Tetley v chitty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Promises or can make repairs but fails to

A

Payne v Rogers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Material interference with ordinary conduct

A

Walter v selfe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

No nuisance for disruption to TV signal

A

Hunter b Canary Wharf

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Loss of a view

A

Alfred’s case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Interference with elegant or dainty modes of living

A

Walter v selfe

17
Q

Substantial and unreasonable

A

Sedleigh-den field v o’callaghan

18
Q

Isolated events only if emanates

A

Spicer v smee

19
Q

Example of excessive behaviour

A

Matania v national provincial bank

20
Q

Character of naighbourhood factor

A

Sturges v Bridgman

21
Q

Character of neighbourhood only relevant to interference with quiet enjoyment

A

Hasley v esso

22
Q

Planning permission affects character

A

Gillingham v Medway dock

23
Q

Public benefit chip shop

A

Adams v ursell

24
Q

Malice

A

Hollywood silver fox farm v emmett

25
Q

Sensitivity of claimant ignored

A

Robinson v kilvert

26
Q

Egg-shell skull rule if would have affected normal user

A

McKinnon industries v walker with sensitive orchids

27
Q

Wagon mound test confirmed in

A

Cambridge waters

28
Q

Prescription defence

A

Sturges v Bridgman

29
Q

Statutory authority defence

A

Allen v gulf oil refining

30
Q

Act of God defence

A

Wringe v Cohen

31
Q

Planning permission ineffective defence

A

Wheeler v Saunders

32
Q

Public benefit ineffective defence but relevant to injunctions

A

Miller v Jackson cricket; contrast kennaway v Thompson powerboats

33
Q

Remedy: loss of amenity value o land

A

Hunter v Canary Wharf

34
Q

Damages instead of injunction in some circumstances

A

Shelter v City of London

35
Q

Abatement prior notice

A

Lemonn v Webb

36
Q

Abatement: belongings must be returned

A

Hills v broker

Tort (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions