Still to learn - nuisance

Question 1

Robson v Thames Water

Answer 1

Ratio: The requirement that only those with a legal interest in land can sue in private nuisance does not contravene Art 6 + 8 ECHR.

Question 2

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan

Answer 2

Ratio: An owner will be liable for a nuisance created by a trespasser if he adopts it.

Facts: Trespasser had laid pipe on the defendant’s land. The defendant was using it and so was held to have adopted the nuisance.

Question 3

Heath v Mayor of Brighton

Answer 3

Ratio: If a person is abnormally sensitive, the activity will not be found unreasonable.

Question 4

Corby Group Litigation v Corby BC

Answer 4

Ratio: Personal injury is recoverable in public nuisance.

Question 5

Walsh v Erwin

Answer 5

Ratio: Special damages can be a different kind of loss or a greater extent of loss.

Question 6

Colour Quest v Total Downstream

Answer 6

Ratio: 1. Bringing something onto the land in excessive quantities can be a non-natural use. 2. IF the ‘dangerous thing’ is fuel, and a fire breaks out, the fuel is assumed to have escaped with the fire.

Question 7

Perry v Kendrick’s Transport

Answer 7

Ratio: The defence of an act of a third party will only operate in Rylands v Fletcher if the defendant has not been negligent.