Section B- Torts Connected To Land (nuisance/rylands And Fletcher) Flashcards
What would make a possible claim for nuisance according to tort law
If an action continues beyond what is reasonable
Private nuisance definition
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.
What did fearne v Tate gallery define nuisance as
A use of land which wrongfully interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of land
What is needed for successful private nuisance claim
-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
Who can be the claimant (include in intro)
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.
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Claimants lost to signal due to new buildings
This was not a lawful nuisance
Who is the defendent (include in intro)
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
Leaky v national trust
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.
Fearn and others v Tate gallery including second appeal
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.
Case for smells
Adam’s v ursell- fish and chip shop a cloud of smell from shop- was a nuisance
Case for loss of TV reception
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Case for general noise/dust/heat/light/vibrations
Halsey v esso petroleum
Case for sex shop lowering the tone and reducing house values
Laws v florinplace- opened sex shop with signs- allowed claim
Case for natural accidents
Leaky v national trust
Case for cricket balls
Miller v Jackson- balls hit over houses- liable
Case for cliff subsidence
Holbeck hall hotel v scarborough BC
Case for noisy neighbours
Coventry v Lawrence
Case for blocked pipe work
Sedleigh-denfield v o callaghan
Case for vibrations from industrial machinery
Sturges v bridgman
Case for loud noise including gunfire
Hollywood silver fox farm
Case for hot air rising into other premises
Kilvert
Case for fire
Spicer v smee
What is prima facie
An ovious nuisance on first glance such as physical damage (st Helen’s v tipping)
What will happen if the nuisance isn’t prima facie
The courts will have to establish reasonableness
The factors in establishing reasonableness
Locality
Duration
Sensitivity of c
Malice
Locality-reasonableness
The character of the neighbourhood will be considered and whether that has changed which can make the nuisance unreasonable
Kennaway v Thompson
Kennaway v Thompson
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
Duration of the interference-reasonableness
In order for it to be unreasonable the interference usually needs to be ‘continuous’ and ‘unreasonable’
Crown river cruises Ltd v kimbolton fireworks Ltd
Sensitivity of the claimant- reasonableness
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
Malice-reasonableness
A deliberately harmful act will normally be considered unreasonable
Hollywood silver fox farm v emmet
Hollywood silver fox farm v emmet
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
what can be a defence in nuisance
prescription
consent
statutory authority
planning permission
prescription and case
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
sturges v bridgman
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.
consent
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.
statutory authority and case
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
planning permission and case
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
gillingham borough council v medway (chatham) dock co
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.
what cannot be a defence- include if relevant but state it can never be a defence
moving to the nuisance
social benefit
moving to the nuisance
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
social benefit
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
miller v jackson
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.
remedies of nuisance
injunction
abatement
damages
injunction
usually prohibitory, ordering the D to stop causing the nuisance e,g. no music playing past 10pm
abatement
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
damages
non pecuinary losses- general damages
pecuinary losses- special damages
