Private Nuisance & Rylands Cases Flashcards
Coventry v Lawrence (What is a nuisance?)
o An action (or sometimes omission) on the part of the defendant which is not otherwise authorised, and which causes an interference with the claimant’s reasonable enjoyment of their land.
Saunders-Clark v Grosvenor Mansions (What is a nuisance?)
o Court must consider if the defendant is using his property reasonably or not.
o If he is, there is nothing which at law can be considered a nuisance.
o If he isn’t the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (Whom are they suing?)
o Occupier can be treated as adopting a nuisance caused by another on their land if they take no actions to stop it.
Tetley v Chitty (Whom are they suing?)
o Landlord was liable for the noise from land he let for the purpose of holding go-karting.
o It was a natural consequence of the letting.
Hunter v Canary Wharf (Does the claimant have standing?)
o Nuisance is a land-based tort and only someone who has possessory or proprietary interest in land can sue in private nuisance.
o The plaintiff will usually be an owner or tenant as to hold otherwise would convert nuisance from a tort to land to a tort to the person.
Potentially pose a threat to the tort of negligence.
o A mere licensee therefore has no right to sue.
St Helens Co v Tipping (Damage in question)
o Case involved physical damage to trees and shrubs on plaintiff’s land.
o The court divided actionable damage into two categories.
Material physical damage.
Loss of amenity e.g. smell and noise.
• Don’t cause tangible damage but detract from enjoyment and value of the land.
Bone v Seal (Damage in question)
o Displayed an action brought for loss of amenity regarding smells emanating from a pig farm.
Hunter v Canary Wharf (Damage in question)
o If the occupier of land suffers personal injury due to inhaling smoke they may have an action in negligence.
o They don’t have a cause of action in nuisance for the personal injury, nor for interference with his personal enjoyment.
St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (Unreasonable user?)
o Confirmed that if there is material damage the nature of the locality will not be a factor against finding nuisance.
Sturges v Bridgman (Unreasonable user?)
o What would be a nuisance in Belgravia would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey.