Private Nuisance

Question 1

Bamford v Turnley

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Southwark London v Tanner

Answer 2

Governing principle is that of good neighbourliness

Question 3

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather

Answer 3

Fault is mostly irrelevant

Interference has to be unreasonable

Question 4

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 4

Must have legal interest in land to sue in nuisance

Interference with TV licence was too de minimis

Question 5

Thomas v NUM

Answer 5

The creator of the nuisance can be sued, despite having no interest in the land on which the nuisance was created

Question 6

Leakey v National Trust

Answer 6

Land was occupied by defendants (not legal owners) - sufficient control over the land to be liable for damage caused by collapsing earth mound

Question 7

Matania v National Provincial Bank

Answer 7

An occupier may be liable for nuisances caused by an independent contractor if nuisance is foreseeable, inevitable and excessive

Question 8

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Lipplatt v South Gloucestershire

Answer 9

Local council were liable for nuisance caused by travellers on their land (held to have adopted the nuisance)

Question 10

Tetley v Chitty

Answer 10

Landlord was liable for noise of tenant’s go-kart track as he had permitted the activity and consequently the nuisance

Question 11

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Goldman v Hargrave

Answer 12

Occupier may be liable for naturally occurring nuisance where they knew of the danger but failed to take reasonable steps to abate it

Question 13

Holbeck Hall v Scarborough

Answer 13

Duty to abate a naturally occurring nuisance is subject to the means of the occupier - not expected to bankrupt themselves in avoiding a nuisance

Question 14

Vernon Knight v Cornwall CC

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Mitchell v Darly Main Colliery

Answer 15

Property damage cannot be to de minimis
Minor subsistence (no material effect) is too de minimis

Question 16

Walter v Selfe

Answer 16

SPD has to address basic levels of human comfort, not just sophisticated standards of inconvenience (high threshold)

Question 17

St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping

Answer 17

Use of land will always be unreasonable if it causes property damage
Location will only be a factor to consider in relation to SPD

Question 18

Dalton v Angus

Answer 18

Cannot claim for loss of a view

Question 19

Wagon Mound (No 2)

Answer 19

Loss has to be foreseeable

Question 20

Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco

Answer 20

Direct interference that encroaches on neighbouring land should be sued in trespass

Question 21

Harrison v Southwark & Vauxhall Water

Answer 21

Defendants had sunk a drilling shaft onto their land - only temporary and for public benefit, so not unreasonable

Question 22

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Colour Quest v Downstream UK

Answer 23

Single devastating incident gave (£750m damage) was actionable in private nuisance

Question 24

Spicer v Smee

Answer 24

Faulty electrical wiring caused a fire which damaged claimant’s property - indicative of underlying state of affairs so actionable in private nuisance

Question 25

British Celanese v AV Hunt

Answer 25

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)

Question 26

Bolton v Stone

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Robinson v Kilvert

Answer 27

Defendant’s heating system caused damage to the claimant’s special paper - would not have damaged ordinary paper so use of land was reasonable

Question 28

McKinnon v Walker

Answer 28

Defendant’s use of land was unreasonable when it damaged claimant’s orchids because ordinary flowers were also damaged

Question 29

Heath v Mayor of Brighton

Answer 29

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

Question 30

Network Rail v Morris

Answer 30

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

Question 31

Claimant v Davey

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Sturges v Bridgman

Answer 33

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

Question 34

Adams v Ursell

Answer 34

Fish and chip shop interfered with claimant’s enjoyment of land due to smell and smoke - situated in residential neighbourhood (unreasonable)

Question 35

Laws v Florinplace

Answer 35

Sex shop opened in Pimlico - actionable in private nuisance because it would attract undesirable customers to an ‘attractive, village -like’ neighbourhood

Question 36

Wheeler v Saunders

Answer 36

Planning permission does not automatically permit the activity as a reasonable use of land

Question 37

Gillingham v Medway

Answer 37

Planning permission may alter character of area from residential to industrial so what was once a nuisance is no longer a nuisance (vice versa)

Question 38

Kennaway v Thompson

Answer 38

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

Question 39

Andrae v Selfridge

Answer 39

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

Question 40

Miller v Jackson

Answer 40

No implied consent to nuisance

Public interest in the cricket club remaining open meant that damages were awarded rather than an injunction

Question 41

Dennis v MoD

Answer 41

Claim under HRA
Public interest/national security interest in keeping airbase open meant no injunction - awarded damages equivalent to depreciation in house price

Question 42

Allen v Gulf Oil

Answer 42

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

Question 43

Barr v Biffa Waste Services

Answer 43

Statute will not necessarily authorise the nuisance, and the reasonableness of the defendant’s behaviour still has to be determined

Question 44

Nichols v Marsland

Answer 44

Act of God (freak storm) caused reservoir to flood - must be unreasonable and unforeseeable

Question 45

Leakey v National Trust

Answer 45

Defendants had notice of the potential nuisance so was not unforeseeable

Question 46

Pwllback Colliery v Woodman

Answer 46

Coal dust from mine was interfering with claimant’s use of land - no implied consent to to nuisance

Question 47

Trevet v Lee

Answer 47

Contributory negligence applies in nuisance

Question 48

Watson v Croft Promo-Sport

Answer 48

Refusing an injunction and granting damages in lieu should only apply in exceptional circumstances

Question 49

Dobson v Thames Water

Answer 49

Cannot claim damages on behalf of other occupants - related to the property only

Question 50

Hatton v UK

Answer 50

HRA claim for Heathrow night flights

Question 51

McKenna v British Aluminium

Answer 51

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