Private Nuisance Template Answer

Question 1

1. Private nuisance is….

Answer 1

An unlawful interference with a persons enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land.

Question 2

2. To be successful in a claim of nuisance C must show:

Answer 2

1. He has the right to being an action and D is capable of being a D.
2. There is interference by physical damage to the land or the loss of amenity using land.
3. Interference is sufficiently serious in all the circumstances to be unlawful.

Question 3

3. If C can show all necessary requirements…..

Answer 3

D may show one of the defences available.
If D fils to show a defence then C may be entitled to a reedy in the form of damages/ injunction or both.
C must have a legal interest, Hunter v Canary Wharf.
APPLY: DOES C HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST?

Question 4

4. The defendant is….

Answer 4

The person causing or allowing the nuisance. D doesn’t have to have an interest in the land. APPLY: WHO IS D?

Question 5

5. ONLY IF RELEVANT: where the occupier isn’t responsible for reacting the nuisance they….

Answer 5

May still be liable as a result of adopting the nuisance or failing to deal with the problem, Sedleigh v O’Callaghan.
A D can also be liable where the nuisance is the result of natural causes which they know/ ought to avert known of but fail to deal with, Anthony v Coal Authority.
APPLY:

Question 6

6. C must prove two things:

Answer 6

1. There is interference by physical damage to land or loss of amenity distributed by noise using the land. APPLY
2. The interference has to be sufficiently serious in all circumstances to be unlawful. The question for the court is in all the circumstances is it reasonable for C to have suffered the particular interference?

Question 7

7. Various factors have developed over the years to help courts decide whether the interference is unlawful:

Answer 7

1. Locality of events: the courts will consider the difference between activities in an industrial area and a residential one, Halsey v Esso and Struges v Bridgman.
2. Duration and time of the nuisance: the more often something happens the more likely the nusiance is. However sometimes a single event can cause a nuisance, Crown River Crusises v Kimbolton Fireworks.
   Time of the nuisance was also considered in Hasley v Essonight.
   Although Tate Modern v Fern confirmed thee isn’t a definitive list of what classes as a nuisance however in this case lack of privacy was a nusiance.
3. Sensitivity of C: if C was using his property for an extra sensitive use he isn’t entitled to sue where reasonable use wouldn’t need protection: Network rail infrastructure v Morris. Robinson v Kilvert.
4. Motive behind Ds activities and if he was acting out of malice: If D deliberately does something with no purpose other than to annoy C, Ds malice may make unlawful something which may not have been a nuisance, Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett 1936 and Christie v Day 1892.
   APPLY: HAS THERE BEEN AN UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE?

Question 8

8. D must prove that damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable using….

Answer 8

The wagon mound principles. This was confirmed in Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather.
APPLY

Question 9

9. There are three main defences to a claim of private nuisance…

Answer 9

1. Prescription: if the action is being carried on for at least 20 years and here has been no complaint between the parties in that time then D has the perspective right to continue.
   However it has to be between the same parties: Sturges v Bridgman. This was confirmed in Coventry v Lawrence.
   APPLY
2. Statutory authority. This applies to nuisance created by a public body acting under legislative power/duty. This needs to be carried out without negligence with reasonable regard to and care of interests of others, Allen v Gulf Oil Refining.
   APPLY
3. Social benefit - reasons for D’s activities and if they have a useful function. The more useful to society of D’s induct the more likely C may have to put up with the interference, Miller v Jackson. Following the case of Fearn v Tate Gallery the courts will only consider public utility (social benefit) n relation to whether a remedy of damages or a junction should be granted, Dennis v MOD.
   APPLY
4. Coming to the nuisance isn’t a defence, STurges v Bridgman and Coventry v Lawrence.
   APPLY

Question 10

10. It is also a defence to show…

Answer 10

That parliament has created an alternative remedy, Marcic v Thames Water.
APPLY

Question 11

11. Local authority planning permission can in some circumstances act as a….

Answer 11

Lawful justification to nuisance, Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock Co. This is if the planning permission changed the nature of locality. However if the planning permission doesn’t change the harasser of the neighbourhood it wont operate as a defence, Wheeler v Saunders.
APPLY

Question 12

12. Remedies

Answer 12

Until Coventry v Lawrence the most common remedy for a nusiance claim was an injunction and damages would only be granted using the Shelfer test. Now in Coventry v Lawrence the Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines:
An injunction could be the fault option in a nusiance claim but is open to D to argue that an award of damages would be a suitable alternative, the Shelfer test shouldn’t be applied rigidly and an injunction wont automatically be granted even if the Shelfer test is satisfied. Abatement is D taking measures to remove the nuisance themselves.
APPLY

Question 13

13. In conclusion…

Answer 13

D is likely/ unlikely to be successful in a claim of private nusiance and the most appropriate remedy would be….