PRIVATE NUISNACE SCENARIO KAREEM Flashcards
identify the claim
def
priv n is indirect unlwaful interfernce with a persons use or ejnoymnetv of tehir land, mist6 be a substantial time
identify the c / who can calim
c can bring a claim against d if the c has propeprotaetb inrest in the and , including tenant but not a licensee
case: malone v laskey: c was licensee c husnand was tenant, c injured using toilet, neighbours elecyricty genrators caused cistern to fall on her, c cudnt claim as she had np propetrat intrest
hun ter v canary: confirmed case of malone, cs calimed that new towerr interfenrmced with reception, family mem ers brough claim, sc cocluded only licenesss cam claim
3 types of interfermec: enrochamnety, physcial injurt to neigybours lamd, interefnevce with enjmoymmet
who can be sued:
pperson cteating the nusimace whether or not theyre the owmer of yhe land :
esso: oil tank ran ground , realesed oil to lighten tank, oil dmaged cs and, c;aim failed as nuisnace was craeted and did not coem from his land and not from land he owed
person authorising the nusinace:
tet;y v chitley: council authorixsef g9 kart rac9ng on aldn were sued , local aurtgority liable as they allowed tye nuisnace and allowed activty creating tye nuisnace
peson adopting to the nuisnace:
sedleigh: council laid driagneg pipeon land of monks , flooded on ds land becoem aware did nothing to fix it , so liable
result of nayural cause but did noth9inmg top prevent it:
leakey:large mound on hillside belonging to d, slipped damage cottage,d aware od=f risk but did nothing to prvent it,
must be indirect offnce
person odes soem gthing on their own land cteating nuidnace to others land
Can be physical damage to land or loss of amenity/loss of enjoyment
bliss v hall: fumes drfiting to neighbours land
robinson: hot fumes
haley v ess9: fuel
unreasonable use of land
must be unreasobanle unawful use of land, court asks is it reasobanle for c to have suffered tgis factors to decdie if reasonavlem
locality: sturges v : what would be a nuisnace in belgrabe may not be a nusinacle im bermondsay
dr sued as vubrreations and nosie frok sweet factroery was i terferring with his consultattion,
decded unreasoaboe
duartion: must be con tinous and unreasobale times of teh daty, must be regular basis ore cause dmage rather than interfenrbece
crown river: river barge seta light from debris coming from d=firework display lasting 20 mins amounts to nyisnace
sensitivity of the c: c wont suceed if using property for extra sensitive puporoses and if usong ir orodnarilty there would be no interference
robinson: stored brown apeper on floor, heat caused paper to dry due to d incraesing basment , normla apper woud not dry out
however , law seems to moving from sensivity to reasobae test
network rail infrastructure: circuit traks interfere wity cs recording, claim failed damage was nor foreseebale as cs equpiment was wweak
mailce: is d terying to annoy c
hollywood farm: c and d had siagreemnet, d told sun to fire gun near cs house to frugfhten mink and stop them breedings, unreasbnalen was a ,alice so claim suceeded was a delibrate mailcious act
christie: c was music teacger doing lessons, d nighbour got annoyed started bmaging on walls
social benefit: when d is providing a bwnwfit to communit7 court may be willing to find act more reasoavle
miller: c xalimed use of gardenn distrupted nby cricte grouynd , court decided againt injuction to stop cricket being played as benefit of criclet palyed outwieghted cs muinace
adams: d opened fisag chip shop, c libed next doir said sateam filled up house, injucrion granted even 5tho thete was sine oublic benefut
defences
