Private, public nuisance and Rylands and Fletcher

Question 1

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 1

Private Nuisance: The tort must be against the land; it is about the protection of property interests
-Various claimants were suing against the construction of Canary Wharf

Question 2

Halsey v Esso Petroleum

Answer 2

Private Nuisance: Chattel damage must be consequential on property damage

• Sulphuric rain as a result of the factory damages the property as well as the C’s car
• he could recover for both so long as the chattel damage was consequential on property damage

Question 3

Bank of New Zealand v Greenwood

Answer 3

Private Nuisance: The interference must emanate from the D’s land

• they built a glass veranda which reflected glare at the C’s house
• Held that this was an actionable nuisance as the glare was emanating form the land

Question 4

Cambridge water v Easter Leathers

Answer 4

Private Nuisance: The Interference to the land must be reasonably foreseeable

• A Tannery used solvents that fell onto the floor went through the concrete and the soil and leaked into underground rivers
• in 9 months it contaminated the water borehole
• Held that there was no actionable nuisance
• It was not reasonably foreseeable

Question 5

Ellison v Ministry of Defence

Answer 5

Private Nuisance: distinguishing between a reasonable and unreasonable user is a balancing exercise

• RAF base built 4 fuel tanks
• the natural earth shifted as a result and caused rain waters to flood the neighbours land
• There was no actionable nuisance as this was a reasonable use of the D’s land
• balance fell in favour of the RAF

Question 6

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 6

Private Nuisance: Factors which govern an unreasonable user; Planning Permission

• Motorway circuit obtained planning permission to upgrade and run longer
• It was held that there was an actionable private nuisance
• Planning permission is not determinative but is a relevant factor in determining the balance

Question 7

Robinson v Kilvert

Answer 7

Private Nuisance: Abnormal sensitivity of the claimant is not actionable unless it can be shown that a reasonably robust claimant would also suffer damage

• Brick Kiln was located in the cellar
• C stored fragile paper that suffered damage
• regular paper would have been fine
• NO nuisance here as the law will not protect an abnormally susceptible claimant

Question 8

British Celanese v Hunt

Answer 8

Private Nuisance: The duration of the interference; is it chronic or a one off event:

• D kept mounds of foil strips on his land to make conductors with
• A storm blew them all away and caused a power station to short
• he was told to do something and didn’t and it happened again
• Held that this was an actionable nuisance as there was a continuing state of affairs

Question 9

Hollywood fox farm v Emmett

Answer 9

Private Nuisance: was the Defendant motivated by Malice

• C bred foxes that were susceptible to noise as it would cause them to eat their young
• D started to shoot his gun on his property to intentionally cause this
• Held that there was an actionable nuisance due predominantly to the D’s malice

Question 10

Page Motos v Epson & Ewell

Answer 10

Private Nuisance: Where someone allows the nuisance to continue even though they can abate it

• Gypsies lived in a vacant lot next to the C’s garage and they harassed him constantly which affected business
• The council knew about this and they did nothing
• The council was held liable because they allowed the nuisance to continue unabated (there was a positive duty to abate danger)

Question 11

Goldman v Hargrave

Answer 11

Private Nuisance: Where the D fails to take all reasonable steps to remove the nuisance

• a tree was struck by lightning and was allowed to burn out, it caught the neighbours property on fire
• They failed to take reasonable steps to put out the fire; simple water

Question 12

Wandsworth v Railtrack

Answer 12

Public Nuisance: obstructions on Highways

• Bridge over a road where pigeons gathered and their droppings fell onto the street and obstructed traffic
• Held that there was an actionable public nuisance

Question 13

R v Rimmington

Answer 13

Public Nuisance: there must be a sufficiently public element
-He sent racist letters to 500 people; this was too small a class of people to be sufficiently public

Question 14

R v Goldstein

Answer 14

Public Nuisance: there must be a sufficiently public element

• He sent a friend a letter filled with salt which caused the post officer to be shut down
• this was a sufficiently public element but he failed for Mens Rea

Question 15

Tate & Lyles v GLC

Answer 15

Public nuisance: Particular damage; where the C has suffered property damage because of a public nuisance

• GLC built a ferry terminal in the thames
• this caused silt to build up in front of Tate
• they had to build their own jetty to combat this
• Held that there was an actionable public nuisance

Question 16

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 16

Rylands: Things that cause damage if they escape

• D owned a mill and had a reservoir built on his land
• The water form the reservoir leaked into underground tunnels and flooded c’s mine
• Held that for public policy reasons they would create this new course of action

Question 17

Read v Lyons

Answer 17

Rylands: an escape from D’s premises is required

• A munitions inspector was hurt when there was an explosion in the factory
• The dangerous thing did not escape the land

Question 18

Cambridge water for Rylands

Answer 18

the damage must be foreseeable

-the storage of chemicals for production is a non natural use of land

Question 19

Perry v Kendricks

Answer 19

Rylands: Acts of God or of a stranger

• 10 year old boy put matches into a petrol tank which exploded
• no RF as D had no control over the actions of a trespasser