Torts Connected to Land

Question 1

Private Nuisance: introduction

Answer 1

• Right to do what you want with your land
  VS
  *Right to not be nuisanced by your neighbor

Question 2

Who can claim

Answer 2

Anyone who has use or enjoyment of the land.
Must have legal interest - Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997).

Question 3

Nuisance: Definition

Answer 3

“An unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land”
Unlawful = unreasonable
Unreasonable = Claimant should not be expected to out up with it

Question 4

Nuisance examples:

Answer 4

• Cricket balls (Miller v Jackson)
• Hot air
  *Smells
• Fumes
  *Oily smuts (Halsey v Esso Petroleum).
  *Noise
• Vibrations from machinery

Question 5

Unreasonable interference:

Answer 5

Factors to decide:
*Duration: Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks
*Malice: Christie v Davey
*Social Benefit: Miller v Jackson
*Sensitivity: Robinson v Kilvert
*Locality: Sturges v Bridgeman

Question 6

Nuisance: Defences

Answer 6

• Prescription: has occurred for 20 years with no complaint, D can continue
• Statutory Authority/Planning permission: Must change the character of the neighborhood
• Consent

Question 7

Shelfer Test

Answer 7

Not applied rigidly
Damages will be rewarded when:
* Injury to C is small
* C can be compensated for a small amount
* It would be unfair to grant an injunction

Question 8

Rylands v Fletcher: Potential claimants

Answer 8

• Have a proprietary interest in the land (Hunter v Canary Wharf)

Question 9

Rylands v Fletcher: Potential defendants

Answer 9

*Owner or occupier of land
* Satisfies the 4 elements
* Has some sort of control over land
Read v Lyons

Question 10

Rylands v Fletcher: 4 Elements

Answer 10

• A ‘thing’ must be brought onto the land
• ‘Thing’ must be likely to cause mischief if it escapes
• The storage amounts to a non-natural use of land
• The ‘thing’ does escape and causes mischief.

Question 11

Rylands v Fletcher: bringing the ‘thing’

Answer 11

Must not be naturally present or accumulating
Weeds - Giles v Walker
Rainwater - Ellison v MOD

Question 12

Rylands v Fletcher: ‘Thing’ causing mischief

Answer 12

Test of foreseeability - only the damage
* Gas and electricity
* Poisonous f7umes
* Flag poles
* Tree branches
* Chair from a chair-o-plane ride - Hale v Jennings Bros

Question 13

Rylands v Fletcher: Non-natural use of land

Answer 13

Rickards v Lothian: “some special use brining with it an increased danger to others.”
* Water in domestic pipes: Rickards v Lothian
* Benefit storing the thing: British Celanese v AH Hunt Ltd.

Question 14

Rylands v Fletcher: ‘Thing’ escaping and causing damage

Answer 14

• From one property to another: Read v Lyons
• Must be foreseeable and not too remote: Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Countries Leather.
• Unlikely to cover personal injury: Cambridge Water
• Unlikely to cover financial loss: Weller v Foot Mouth Disease Research Unit.

Question 15

Rylands v Fletcher: Defences

Answer 15

• Acts of god: extreme weather (Nichols v Marsland).
• Acts of a stranger: whom the defendant has no control over (Perry v Kendrick’s Transport).
• Consent: claimant consented to the thing that is stored (Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre).
• Statutory authority: provides authorization
• Contributory negligence: C is partly responsible for the escape.