Private Nuisance Flashcards
Bamford v Turnley
Private nuisance = any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s land or use or enjoyment of that land
Rule of ‘live and let live’
Must be more than trivial
Southwark London v Tanner
Governing principle is that of good neighbourliness
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
Fault is mostly irrelevant
Interference has to be unreasonable
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Must have legal interest in land to sue in nuisance
Interference with TV licence was too de minimis
Thomas v NUM
The creator of the nuisance can be sued, despite having no interest in the land on which the nuisance was created
Leakey v National Trust
Land was occupied by defendants (not legal owners) - sufficient control over the land to be liable for damage caused by collapsing earth mound
Matania v National Provincial Bank
An occupier may be liable for nuisances caused by an independent contractor if nuisance is foreseeable, inevitable and excessive
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan
Landowner liable for damage caused by a leaking pipe installed by third party as they had adopted the thing causing the nuisance
Balance has to be maintained between the occupier’s and claimant’s rights
Test - reasonable is judged according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in that particular society
Lipplatt v South Gloucestershire
Local council were liable for nuisance caused by travellers on their land (held to have adopted the nuisance)
Tetley v Chitty
Landlord was liable for noise of tenant’s go-kart track as he had permitted the activity and consequently the nuisance
Coventry v Lawrence
A landlord could not be held liable for noise of a tenant’s activity unless there was a virtual certainty that the nuisance would entail
Planning permission does not negate the obligation to take your neighbours into consideration
Goldman v Hargrave
Occupier may be liable for naturally occurring nuisance where they knew of the danger but failed to take reasonable steps to abate it
Holbeck Hall v Scarborough
Duty to abate a naturally occurring nuisance is subject to the means of the occupier - not expected to bankrupt themselves in avoiding a nuisance
Vernon Knight v Cornwall CC
Court will consider what steps are fair, just and reasonable to expect the defendant to take considering the resources available too him and the claimant
Must take into account the competing demands on public funds
Mitchell v Darly Main Colliery
Property damage cannot be to de minimis Minor subsistence (no material effect) is too de minimis
Walter v Selfe
SPD has to address basic levels of human comfort, not just sophisticated standards of inconvenience (high threshold)
St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping
Use of land will always be unreasonable if it causes property damage
Location will only be a factor to consider in relation to SPD
Dalton v Angus
Cannot claim for loss of a view
Wagon Mound (No 2)
Loss has to be foreseeable
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco
Direct interference that encroaches on neighbouring land should be sued in trespass
Harrison v Southwark & Vauxhall Water
Defendants had sunk a drilling shaft onto their land - only temporary and for public benefit, so not unreasonable
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks
Fireworks launched from defendant’s land caused a fire and damaged claimant’s property
Where an activity creates a state of affairs which gives rise to the risk of escape of physically dangerous or damaging material (e.g. fire, water, gas), remedy should be available in respect of that situation, no matter how brief in duration
Colour Quest v Downstream UK
Single devastating incident gave (£750m damage) was actionable in private nuisance
Spicer v Smee
Faulty electrical wiring caused a fire which damaged claimant’s property - indicative of underlying state of affairs so actionable in private nuisance
British Celanese v AV Hunt
Metal foil strips escaped from defendant’s factory and caused property damage when came into contact with power station - defendant knew or ought to have known that this would happen (received warning from electricity board)
Bolton v Stone
Cricket ball hit a bystander on the head - despite being an isolated incident the cricket was an ongoing and regular activity, so it was actionable in private nuisance
Robinson v Kilvert
Defendant’s heating system caused damage to the claimant’s special paper - would not have damaged ordinary paper so use of land was reasonable
McKinnon v Walker
Defendant’s use of land was unreasonable when it damaged claimant’s orchids because ordinary flowers were also damaged
Heath v Mayor of Brighton
If the hypothetical reasonable occupier would be affected, then the full extent of damages and SPD will be allowed, even if increased by their sensitivity
Congregation did not complain of noise that disturbed claimant
Network Rail v Morris
Claimant’s argued that a railway signalling system was interfering with electric guitars used in their recording studios - use of electronic equipment was now a feature of modern life but the guitars were too sensitive
Claimant v Davey
If the only reason for the interference is malice then the activity will be unreasonable
Defendant made large amounts of noise to disturb neighbour’s piano lessons
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
Defendant did not like foxes reared on neighbouring farm, so shot a gun to scare them
Malice was only reason - unreasonable activity
Consequential economic loss is recoverable in nuisance
Sturges v Bridgman
Claimant lived near sweet factory and complained that the noise was disturbing his business
‘What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’
Prescription = if an activity has been an actionable nuisance by the claimant for more than 20 years but has not complained of it
Adams v Ursell
Fish and chip shop interfered with claimant’s enjoyment of land due to smell and smoke - situated in residential neighbourhood (unreasonable)
Laws v Florinplace
Sex shop opened in Pimlico - actionable in private nuisance because it would attract undesirable customers to an ‘attractive, village -like’ neighbourhood
Wheeler v Saunders
Planning permission does not automatically permit the activity as a reasonable use of land
Gillingham v Medway
Planning permission may alter character of area from residential to industrial so what was once a nuisance is no longer a nuisance (vice versa)
Kennaway v Thompson
Motorboat racing on Lake Windemere was a nuisance because it was held for several hours at a time
Partial injunction to restrict activity to certain times to balance rights of the landowner with public interest
Andrae v Selfridge
If the defendant has shown a lack of care, this is likely to count in the claimant’s favour
Consequential economic loss is recoverable under nuisance
Miller v Jackson
No implied consent to nuisance
Public interest in the cricket club remaining open meant that damages were awarded rather than an injunction
Dennis v MoD
Claim under HRA
Public interest/national security interest in keeping airbase open meant no injunction - awarded damages equivalent to depreciation in house price
Allen v Gulf Oil
If statute authorises an activity and the nuisance is inevitable, it will operate as a defence as long as all due care has been exercised
Barr v Biffa Waste Services
Statute will not necessarily authorise the nuisance, and the reasonableness of the defendant’s behaviour still has to be determined
Nichols v Marsland
Act of God (freak storm) caused reservoir to flood - must be unreasonable and unforeseeable
Leakey v National Trust
Defendants had notice of the potential nuisance so was not unforeseeable
Pwllback Colliery v Woodman
Coal dust from mine was interfering with claimant’s use of land - no implied consent to to nuisance
Trevet v Lee
Contributory negligence applies in nuisance
Watson v Croft Promo-Sport
Refusing an injunction and granting damages in lieu should only apply in exceptional circumstances
Dobson v Thames Water
Cannot claim damages on behalf of other occupants - related to the property only
Hatton v UK
HRA claim for Heathrow night flights
McKenna v British Aluminium
Common law cannot extend categories of claimants for nuisance - since it is related to land, the claimant must have a legal interest in that land
