(RED( Private Nuisance

Question 1

Surges v Bridgeman

Answer 1

Noise and vibrations

Question 2

St Helens Smelting v Tipping

Answer 2

Smoke and fumes

Question 3

Bliss v Hall

Answer 3

Smells

Question 4

Halsey v Esso Petroleum

Answer 4

Smells and physical damage

Question 5

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 5

Problems with TV reception
Would open the floodgates

Question 6

Private nuisance quote

Answer 6

‘Unlawful (unreasonable) interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land’

Question 7

3 elements nuisance

Answer 7

1) interference
2)damage
3) unlawful (unreasonable)

Question 8

Interference

Answer 8

Sturgeon v bridgeman - noise and smells
St Helens smelting v tipping - smoke and fumes
Bliss v hall - smells
Halsey v esso petroleum - smells and physical damage
HUNTER V CANARY WHARF - floodgates

Question 9

Damage

Answer 9

Must prove reasonably foreseeable

Question 10

Unreasonable factors to consider

Answer 10

‘Live and let live’
Sensitivity
Locality
Planning permission
Duration
Malice

Question 11

Sensitivity

Answer 11

Robinson via kilvert - delicate brown paper
McKinnon industries v walker - orchards, gas - normal enjoyment infringed

Question 12

Locality

Answer 12

surges v bridgemen - ‘what maybe a nuisance in belgrave square would not be a nuisance in Bermondsey’
St Helens smelting co v tipping - area doesn’t apply to physical damage
Murdock v glacier metal co - factory above WHO levels but loud bypass nearby

Question 13

Planning permission

Answer 13

Wheeler v Saunders - no change in character of neighbourhood so nuisance despite planning permission
Gillingham BC v Medway - planning permission granted for commercial port - change nature so no nuisance

Question 14

Duration

Answer 14

De Keyser’s royal hotel v spicer bros - prevent night building work even though only temporary
Crown river cruisers v kimbolton fireworks - 20 min fireworks were nuisance

Question 15

Malice

Answer 15

Turns reasonable act into unreasonable
Christie v Davey - distrusted music teacher with malicious noises

Question 16

Who can be sued

Answer 16

• creator of nuisance
• occupier of land - aware of third party nuisance
• owner if land - only if in control
  Tetley v chitty - l.a allowed go-karting on land - liable

Question 17

Who can sue

Answer 17

Proprietary interest in land - own or rent
Hunter v Canary Wharf

Question 18

Nuisance Defences

Answer 18

Coming to nuisance (not defence) - miller v Jackson
Care and skill - no
Public defence - no - miller v Jackson
Prescription - 20 years with no change and no action taken

Question 19

Nuisance Remedies

Answer 19

Abatement - self-help
Damages - rare,Coventry v Lawrence -motor sports, public benefit considered
Prohibitory injunction - stops or limits
Bellew v cement - Ireland’s only cement factory closed
Kennaway v Thompson - boat racing, races increased, noise, injunction
Mill v Jackson - damages
Mandatory - must do something