UK Law of Nuisance Flashcards
What is the case name associated with the concept of ‘nuisance’ in the UK?
Sturges v. Bridgman (1879)
In Sturges v. Bridgman, what was the main issue?
Whether the noise from a confectioner’s shop constituted a nuisance.
What was the outcome of Sturges v. Bridgman?
The court ruled in favor of the claimant, establishing that the noise was a nuisance.
True or False: In the case of Miller v. Jackson (1977), the court ruled that cricket balls hitting a house constituted a nuisance.
True
What is the significance of the case Miller v. Jackson?
It highlighted the balance between public enjoyment of sports and private property rights.
Fill in the blank: The case of __________ established that a long-established activity cannot be a nuisance if it was lawful.
Prescott v. W. H. Smith
What did the court determine in the case of Cambridge Water Co. Ltd v. Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994)?
The court held that the defendant was liable for pollution that caused damage to the claimant’s water supply.
In the case of Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd (1997), what was the main issue at hand?
Whether the construction of a tower caused a nuisance by blocking television signals.
What was the outcome of Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd?
The House of Lords ruled that the claimants did not have a right to claim for loss of television reception.
What principle was established in the case of Bolton v. Stone (1951)?
A defendant is not liable for nuisance if the harm was not foreseeable.
True or False: In the case of Lawrence v. Fen Tigers Ltd (2014), the court ruled that the defendant’s business operations were a nuisance.
True
What was the key concept discussed in the case of Robinson v. Kilvert (1889)?
The sensitivity of the claimant’s use of the property was not a consideration in determining nuisance.
Fill in the blank: The case of __________ involved a dispute over the emission of smoke from a factory.
Bamford v. Turnley
What did the court conclude in the case of Southwark LBC v. Mills (2001)?
The court found that the noise from residential properties did not constitute a nuisance.
In the case of Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd (1961), what type of nuisance was established?
The court recognized the nuisance of oil fumes affecting residential properties.
What is the significance of the case of Watson v. Croft Promo-Sport Ltd (2009)?
The case addressed the issue of noise nuisance from motorsport events.
True or False: In the case of Gillingham Borough Council v. Medway Dock Co. Ltd (1993), the court ruled that the port’s operations were a nuisance.
False
What was the outcome of the case of Kelsen v. Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd (1957)?
The court ruled in favor of the claimant, establishing that the sign obstructed airspace was a nuisance.
In the case of Barr v. Biffa Waste Services Ltd (2012), what was the main issue?
The claimants sought relief from odorous emissions from a waste site.
What was the decision in Barr v. Biffa Waste Services Ltd?
The court ruled in favor of the claimants, recognizing the smell as a nuisance.
Fill in the blank: The case of __________ involved a dispute over the use of land for noisy events.
Murdoch v. McDonald
What principle was established in the case of R v. Rimmington (2006)?
Public nuisance can arise from the actions of individuals that affect the community.
True or False: In the case of Adams v. Ursell (1913), the court ruled that a fish and chip shop was a nuisance.
True
What was the outcome of the case of Tuck v. Firth (1850)?
The court ruled that the defendant’s activities were a nuisance due to excessive noise.
