Torts Connected To Land (chapter 23)

Question 1

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) - television reception

Answer 1

. Claimants were number of people living in Docklands area when Canary Wharf office tower was built
. Claimed building affected television reception:
- recreational facility was not sufficient to amount to a private nuisance - partly because other forms of reception, such as cable and satellite, were available
- only those claimants with interest in land, and not members of families, were able to bring claim

Question 2

Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd (1996) - fireworks

Answer 2

. River barge was set alight by flammable debris coming from a firework display lasting 20 minutes
. It was held that display amount to a private nuisance
. Fact that interference is only temporary is not sufficient reason to avoid a claim if its unreasonable interference

Question 3

Robinson v Kilvert (1889) - brown paper

Answer 3

. Claimant stored brown paper on ground floor of building
. Heat from basement caused paper to dry out and claimant sued for loss in value
. Decided that brown paper was delicate and heat from basement would not have dried out normal paper, so there was no nuisance

Question 4

Network Rail infrastructure v Morris (2004) - track circuits

Answer 4

. Claimant ran recording studio near main london to Brighton railway line
. New track circuits were installed beside railway which interfered with amplification of electric guitars, causing claimant to lose business
. Court of appeal decided use of amplified guitars was abnormally sensitive equipment
. And as nuisance was not foreseeable, defendants weren’t liable for private nuisance

Question 5

Christie v Davey (1893) - music teacher

Answer 5

. Claimant was music teacher and held parties and lessons in his house
. Defendant became annoyed with nose and responded by banging on walls with his hand and trays
. Injunction was granted against him due to his deliberate and malicious behaviour

Question 6

Miller v Jackson (1977) - cricket balls

Answer 6

. Claimant complained garden was disrupted by cricket balls being hit into it
. Cricket club put high fencing
. Despite their compromise, claimants continued their action
. Court weighed public benefit against private benefit of claimants use and enjoyment of their garden
. Decided that public benefit outweighed private benefit and no private nuisance was being caused

Question 7

Sedleigh Denfeild v O’Callaghan (1941) - monks

Answer 7

. Defendants were an order of monks who occupied land where there was a ditch
. Without defendants knowledge, local authority laid pipe to take water from ditch
. It was in the wrong place and caused a flood - defendants became known of it
. House of Lords decided defendants were liable in private nuisance as occupier who knows of danger and allows it to continue is liable - even if they didn’t create nuisance in first place

Question 8

Sturges v Bridgeman (1879) - confectionary factory

Answer 8

. Claimant lived and worked next to defendants confectionary factory
. Claimant complained of feeling vibrations from defendants consulting room
. Defendant argued he had prescriptive right to continue as he had been using factory for over 20 years without complaint
. Court decided the defence failed as nuisance began when consulting room was built

Question 9

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining (1981) - oil refinery

Answer 9

. Defendants operated oil refinery
. Local residents brought an action in nuisance
. Defendants had been given statutory authority acquire the site and build a refinery, but no express provision to operate it
. House of Lords said it must have been parliaments intention when it was given permission to also operate it
. As nuisance was inevitable consequences, defence of statutory authority applied

Question 10

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) - mill owner

Answer 10

. Defendant was a mill owner
. He hired contractors to create a reservoir on his land to act as a water supply for mill
. Contractors negligently failed to block off disused mineshafts
. Unknown to contractors, shafts were connected to other mine works on adjoining land
. When reservoir was filled, water flooded neighbouring mines
. Defendant was liable

Question 11

Hale v Jennings Bros (1938) - fairground ride

Answer 11

. Fairground ride became detached from main assembly while in motion and injured a stallholder as it crashed
. Owner of ride was liable as injury was foreseeable if it came loose

Question 12

Standard v Gore (2012) - tyre fitting premises

Answer 12

. Fire occurred in tyre fitting premises which spread to claimants adjoining premises
. Claimants action was dismissed in court of appeal
. In their fire it was essential requirement that an exceptionally dangerous ‘thing’ be brought and stored on land and which had escaped
. It was the fire that had escaped, not tyres, and tyres weren’t that dangerous

Question 13

Rickards v Lothian (1913) - water taps

Answer 13

. Unknown person turned on water taps and blocked plug holes on defendants premises, causing damage to flat below
. Defendant was not liable as use of water in domestic pipes was a natural use of land

Question 14

Read v J. Lyons & Co. Ltd (1947) - munitions factory

Answer 14

. Inspector was checking interior of munitions factory and was injured, with other workers
. House of Lords decided rylands v fletcher did not apply as there was ‘no escape at all of relevant kind’

Question 15

Nichols v Marsland (1876) - natural stream

Answer 15

. Defendant made 3 artificial ornamental lakes by damming a natural stream
. Freak thunderstorms accompanied by torriental rain broke the banks of artificial lakes, this water destroyed bridges on claimants land
. Defendants weren’t liable as extreme weather conditions amount to an act of god

Question 16

Perry v Kendricks Transport (1956) - fuel cap

Answer 16

. Defendant parked their bus on their parking space, with drained tank of fuel
. Stranger removed fuel cap and child was injured when another child threw a match into the tank, igniting fumes
. Claimant was made in tort of rylands v fletcher but defendants were not liable for act of stranger

Question 17

Peters v prince of wales theatre (1943) - theatre

Answer 17

. Claimant leased shop next to theatre from defendant
. Shop suffered flood damage when pipes from theatres sprinkler system burst
. Defendant wasn’t liable in Rylands v Fletcher action
. It was decided sprinkler system was also benefit of claimant who was ruled to have consented to it as it had been installed before lease was signed