Section B- Torts Connected To Land (nuisance/rylands And Fletcher)

Question 1

What would make a possible claim for nuisance according to tort law

Answer 1

If an action continues beyond what is reasonable

Question 2

Private nuisance definition

Answer 2

Caused by a person doing something on their own land which they are lawfully entitled to do but that becomes a nuisance when the consequences of their act extend to the land of the ur neighbour.

Question 3

What did fearne v Tate gallery define nuisance as

Answer 3

A use of land which wrongfully interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of land

Question 4

What is needed for successful private nuisance claim

Answer 4

-unreasonable
- the interference can be indirect (hasley v esso petroleum) such as smoke smell or noise
- can be direct due to an enroachment on neighbours land like roots from a tree on Cs property.
-there can be no claim for personal injury

Question 5

Who can be the claimant (include in intro)

Answer 5

C must have an interest in the land e.g. owner or tenant
Their use or enjoyment of the land affected by the intereference
A member of the owners family can’t claim if they don’t have an interest in the land (hunter v Canary Wharf) however if the owner is effected to the owner can claim on families behalf.

Question 6

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 6

Claimants lost to signal due to new buildings
This was not a lawful nuisance

Question 7

Who is the defendent (include in intro)

Answer 7

D is the person who is causing or allowing the nuisance
May be the creator, landlords, occupier
D may be liable due to impact of trespasser
Or what a previous owner did
In sedleigh denfeild v o Callaghan- can be liable if they didn’t create it
Could be local authority as in tetley v chitty

Question 8

Leaky v national trust

Answer 8

Nuisance can be from natural causes.
Ds owned a land where there was a large natural mound on the hillside that slipped, damaging the claimants cottage
Held: Ds were liable as they knew that a slippage might happen and failed to prevent it.

Question 9

Fearn and others v Tate gallery including second appeal

Answer 9

Residents of the flats opposite the Tate brought a nuisance claim when new viewing tower had been. Built meaning there were pictures with residents houses in the background.
Second appeal: the SC decided this is a nuisance. It held that the veiwing platform caused nuisance to the flat owners. The defendent wont be liable if they are doing more than making common and ordinary use of their own land.

Question 10

Case for smells

Answer 10

Adam’s v ursell- fish and chip shop a cloud of smell from shop- was a nuisance

Question 11

Case for loss of TV reception

Answer 11

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Question 12

Case for general noise/dust/heat/light/vibrations

Answer 12

Halsey v esso petroleum

Question 13

Case for sex shop lowering the tone and reducing house values

Answer 13

Laws v florinplace- opened sex shop with signs- allowed claim

Question 14

Case for natural accidents

Answer 14

Leaky v national trust

Question 15

Case for cricket balls

Answer 15

Miller v Jackson- balls hit over houses- liable

Question 16

Case for cliff subsidence

Answer 16

Holbeck hall hotel v scarborough BC

Question 17

Case for noisy neighbours

Answer 17

Coventry v Lawrence

Question 18

Case for blocked pipe work

Answer 18

Sedleigh-denfield v o callaghan

Question 19

Case for vibrations from industrial machinery

Answer 19

Sturges v bridgman

Question 20

Case for loud noise including gunfire

Answer 20

Hollywood silver fox farm

Question 21

Case for hot air rising into other premises

Answer 21

Kilvert

Question 22

Case for fire

Answer 22

Spicer v smee

Question 23

What is prima facie

Answer 23

An ovious nuisance on first glance such as physical damage (st Helen’s v tipping)

Question 24

What will happen if the nuisance isn’t prima facie

Answer 24

The courts will have to establish reasonableness

Question 25

The factors in establishing reasonableness

Answer 25

Locality Duration Sensitivity of c Malice

Question 26

Locality-reasonableness

Answer 26

The character of the neighbourhood will be considered and whether that has changed which can make the nuisance unreasonable Kennaway v Thompson

Question 27

Kennaway v Thompson

Answer 27

D was a member of a boat club, c moved into a house nearby the lake and the boat club events increased over time Held- c was successful in nuisance due to the locality of the area- character of neighbourhood changed

Question 28

Duration of the interference-reasonableness

Answer 28

In order for it to be unreasonable the interference usually needs to be ‘continuous’ and ‘unreasonable’ Crown river cruises Ltd v kimbolton fireworks Ltd

Question 29

Sensitivity of the claimant- reasonableness

Answer 29

It is not reasoable for D to be liable if C is particularly sensitive The courts will now look at the forsee ability of the interference Network rain infrastructure v morris- interference from a new track circuit with a nearby sensitive guitar equipment was not forsee able so Ds not liable

Question 30

Malice-reasonableness

Answer 30

A deliberately harmful act will normally be considered unreasonable Hollywood silver fox farm v emmet

Question 31

Hollywood silver fox farm v emmet

Answer 31

d had disagreement so told son to shoot c property so mink would not breed Held- shooting guns was a deliberately harmful act so unreasonable

Question 32

what can be a defence in nuisance

Answer 32

prescription consent statutory authority planning permission

Question 33

prescription and case

Answer 33

if the action has been carried on for at least 20 years and there has bee no complaint between the same parties in that time, then D may have prescriptive right to continue sturges v bridgman

Question 34

sturges v bridgman

Answer 34

the C: a doctor built a consulting room in his backgarden and complained of nuisance due to a factory- vibrations and D claimed he had been using the factory for 20 years wil no complaints. held- the defence of prescription failed as nuisance only began when consulting room was built.

Question 35

consent

Answer 35

consent is a full defence. the the c is found to have consented to the nuisance then there is no liability on the part of D and C will receive no damages.

Question 36

statutory authority and case

Answer 36

one of the most effecrive defences as many of the activities that can amount to a nuisance are now regulated or licenced by environmental or other laws. so by passing the law parliament has allowed that nuisance to happen allen v gulf oil refining

Question 37

planning permission and case

Answer 37

local authority planning permission cannot be an absolute defence as seen in coventry v lawrence. which stated it is no more than evidence. however if character of neighbourhood does change following the permission this could lead to the nuisance being considered as reasonable but if they had permission to do something and then the character of the neighbourhood changed (did not have permission for) there can be a nuisance. gillingham borough council v medway (chatham) dock co

Question 38

gillingham borough council v medway (chatham) dock co

Answer 38

planning permission was given for a commercial port where only access was by residential roads. held- court decided that there was no actionable nuisance because the granting of planning permission had changed the character of the neighbourhood.

Question 39

what cannot be a defence- include if relevant but state it can never be a defence

Answer 39

moving to the nuisance social benefit

Question 40

moving to the nuisance

Answer 40

d may argue c is only suffering the nuisance as they have moved closer to the problem (miller v jackson) this is not a defence

Question 41

social benefit

Answer 41

attempts have been made by Ds to argue that an activity which provides a public benefit should be exempt from a claim in nuisance (bellew v cement co ltd) however been ruled it cant be a defence- miller v jackson

Question 42

miller v jackson

Answer 42

the c complained that there use of garden was disrupted by garden balls being hit into it. held- court recognised that cricket balls coming onto the land were a nuisance however not needed to grant an injunction as not in public interest do do that.

Question 43

remedies of nuisance

Answer 43

injunction abatement damages

Question 44

injunction

Answer 44

usually prohibitory, ordering the D to stop causing the nuisance e,g. no music playing past 10pm

Question 45

abatement

Answer 45

where C is allowed to enter Ds property to remove the nuisance themselves e.g. cutting off overhanging branches- lemmon v webb If abatement will cost expense and if D is poor- not use remidy

Question 46

damages

Answer 46

non pecuinary losses- general damages pecuinary losses- special damages

Question 47

a strict liability tort was developed in the cause of rylands v fletcher 1868 what does strict liability mean

Answer 47

D only needs to have caused what happened (AR) MR doesnt have to be proven

Question 48

what are the 4 elements in Ryland's v fletcher that need to be proven for a successful claim

Answer 48

1. the bringing onto the land and accumulation 2. the thing is likely to cause mischeif if it esacpes 3. extraordinary and unusual use of the land 4. it must escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage that is not too remote to the adjoining property

Question 49

case facts for rylands v fletcher

Answer 49

D made a reservoir as a water supply for his mill. the contractors negligently failed to block off disused mineshafts so water flooded neighbouring mines after reservoir was filled held- a calim could be made if material was brought onto the land and stores, it was likely to cause mischeif if it escapes, which amounted to a non natural use of land which escapes and caused forseaabke damage. d was liable

Question 50

claimant

Answer 50

C must have an interest in the land affected e.g. own or rent it transco

Question 51

defendent

Answer 51

D will either be the owner or occupier of the land. it is assumed that the D must have some CONTROL over the land which the material is stored(read v lyons)

Question 52

bringing onto the land and accumulation

Answer 52

there must be bringing onto the land of a substance if it is naturally present on the land such as weeds in giles v walker it is not an accumulation it cannot naturally accumulate on the land- rainwater- ellison v ministry

Question 53

the thing is likely to do mischeif if it escapes

Answer 53

it must be likely to cause damage if it escapes the court must recognise that judged by the standards of the relevant time and place there was an exceptionally high risk of danger should there be an escape hale v jennings bros

Question 54

hale v jennings bros

Answer 54

PERSONAL INJURY NOT INCLUDED IN RvF a chair on the fairground ride became detached and injured a stall holder held- owner ride was liable as the risk of injury was foreseeable if the chair became loose

Question 55

extra ordinary and unusual use of the land

Answer 55

non natural use of the land. time and place must be considered (transco v stockport MBC) in generak storage of things associated with the domestic use of land will not normaly be classified as non natural rickards v lothian previously if the public have a benefit from the use of land then it may be found to be natural

Question 56

rickards v lothian

Answer 56

an unknown person turned on water taps and blocked plugholes on Ds premises so that damage was caused to the flat below held- D not lible as use of water in domestic pipes was a natural use of land.

Question 57

transco v stockport MBC (2003)

Answer 57

SK council were responsible for the maintenence of the pipes which supplied water to a block of flats. an undeceted leak developed for some timw. the water collected at an embankment which housed the Cs gas main and caused it to collapse. caused serious and immediate risk. held- SK council not liable due to the use of land not being non natural

Question 58

cases for if previously if the public have a benefit from the use of land then it may be found to be natural

Answer 58

british celanese v A H hunt ltd- old precedent cambridge water co. v eastern counties leather plc- new precedent

Question 59

british celanese V A H hunt ltd

Answer 59

D stored metal strips of foil which were used in the manufacturing of electrical components and they blew onto an electric station- power outage held- use of land was natural because of the benefit obtained by the local population

Question 60

cambridge water co. V eastern counties leather plc

Answer 60

the storage of chemicals was classed as a non natural use of land despite the factory being a important source of local employment.

Question 61

the thing stored must escape and cause forseeable damage it must not be too remote

Answer 61

must escape onto an ajoining property ponting v noakes stannard v gore read v lyons cambridge water co. V eastern counties leather plc

Question 62

Pointing v noakes- thing must escape and cause forseeable damage

Answer 62

Ds horse died after it had reached over the D s fence and ate leaves from the tree Held- D not liable as the tree was in the Ds land and so there was no escape.

Question 63

Standards v gore- thing must escape and cause forseeable damage

Answer 63

Fire and tyres If a by product of the thing stored escapes rather than the thing itself the element is not fulfilled e.g. if smokes escapes instead of the fire itself

Question 64

Read v Lyon’s- thing must escape and cause forseeable damage

Answer 64

An explosion took place in factory causing injury Held- material had to escape from one property onto an adjoining one so no liablility as no escape NO PI UNDER R+F

Question 65

Defences for Rylands and fletcher

Answer 65

Consent- no L where C consented to the thing stored by d CN- C partly responsible for the thing that escapes - damage reduced Act of stranger- if stranger who D has no control over has been cause of escape Act of god- extreme weather that no human foresight can provide against- unforseeable Statutory authority- AOP authorise Ds actions Common benefit- source of danger was maintained for the benefit of the C and D the D wont be liable (dunne v north west gas board)

Question 66

Remedies for rylands and fletchers

Answer 66

Pecuniary losses- special damages Non pecuniary losses- general damages