Public Nuisance

Question 1

Benjamin v Storr (1874)

Answer 1

Held; in public nuisance, damage must be ‘particular, direct and substantial’.

Question 2

Re Corby Group Litigation [2009]

Answer 2

Claimants - 18 ppl born in between 1986-99 with upper limb deformities.
Claim brought in public nuisance - site governed by local council - mothers when pregnant - lived near site.
Liability
Authority appealed on basis that personal injury IS NOT ACTIONABLE in nuisance claims.
HELD; THAT PERSONAL INJURY IS ACTIONABLE IN PUBLIC NUISANCE.

Shows that much more types of damage are protected in public nuisance.
DYSON LJ: The essence of the right that is protected by the crime and tort of public nuisance is the right not to be adversely affected by the unlawful act or omission whose effect is to endanger the life, safety, health etc. of the public.’

Question 3

Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957]

Answer 3

Public element:

Romer LJ: …“materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects”

Must affect section of public…but

question of how many ppl required to make up the class is fact-sensitive on each case.

DENNING LJ: public nuisance if ‘so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it.’

Question 4

R. v Rimmington; R. v Goldstein [2006]

Answer 4

Rimmington - racist material sent to various individuals
Goldstein - kosher salt - bomb scare at postal sorting office - all people had to evacuate the premises

Criminal convictions for public nuisance QUASHED.

Held; on the ‘public’ element:
Rimmington - nuisance caused to separate individuals but stemming from the same person IS NOT common injury to a section of the public - thus not satisfying the ‘public element’ set out in AG v PYA Quarries Ltd

Goldstein - lacked mens rea for crime due to lack of foreseeability.

Question 5

Halsley v Esso Petroleum

Answer 5

P complained of noise etc. caused by lorries going to D’s oil refinery.
Problem was that noise was caused on public highway, and NOT in the actual refinery.
Separate claim under R v F
Court said that it does not matter whether claim brought in private or public nuisance.
But, as public highway is for use by everyone, can be brought in public nuisance.

Question 6

Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd.

Answer 6

Example of an AMALGAMATED PRIVATE NUISANCE claim

Type of public nuisance arising out of a private nuisance which affects a sufficiently large number of people that it would not be reasonable to expect lone claimant to bring proceedings.