UK Law of Nuisance Flashcards

1
Q

What is the case name associated with the concept of ‘nuisance’ in the UK?

A

Sturges v. Bridgman (1879)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

In Sturges v. Bridgman, what was the main issue?

A

Whether the noise from a confectioner’s shop constituted a nuisance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What was the outcome of Sturges v. Bridgman?

A

The court ruled in favor of the claimant, establishing that the noise was a nuisance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

True or False: In the case of Miller v. Jackson (1977), the court ruled that cricket balls hitting a house constituted a nuisance.

A

True

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the significance of the case Miller v. Jackson?

A

It highlighted the balance between public enjoyment of sports and private property rights.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Fill in the blank: The case of __________ established that a long-established activity cannot be a nuisance if it was lawful.

A

Prescott v. W. H. Smith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What did the court determine in the case of Cambridge Water Co. Ltd v. Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994)?

A

The court held that the defendant was liable for pollution that caused damage to the claimant’s water supply.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

In the case of Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd (1997), what was the main issue at hand?

A

Whether the construction of a tower caused a nuisance by blocking television signals.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was the outcome of Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd?

A

The House of Lords ruled that the claimants did not have a right to claim for loss of television reception.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What principle was established in the case of Bolton v. Stone (1951)?

A

A defendant is not liable for nuisance if the harm was not foreseeable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

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.

A

True

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What was the key concept discussed in the case of Robinson v. Kilvert (1889)?

A

The sensitivity of the claimant’s use of the property was not a consideration in determining nuisance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Fill in the blank: The case of __________ involved a dispute over the emission of smoke from a factory.

A

Bamford v. Turnley

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What did the court conclude in the case of Southwark LBC v. Mills (2001)?

A

The court found that the noise from residential properties did not constitute a nuisance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

In the case of Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd (1961), what type of nuisance was established?

A

The court recognized the nuisance of oil fumes affecting residential properties.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the significance of the case of Watson v. Croft Promo-Sport Ltd (2009)?

A

The case addressed the issue of noise nuisance from motorsport events.

17
Q

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.

18
Q

What was the outcome of the case of Kelsen v. Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd (1957)?

A

The court ruled in favor of the claimant, establishing that the sign obstructed airspace was a nuisance.

19
Q

In the case of Barr v. Biffa Waste Services Ltd (2012), what was the main issue?

A

The claimants sought relief from odorous emissions from a waste site.

20
Q

What was the decision in Barr v. Biffa Waste Services Ltd?

A

The court ruled in favor of the claimants, recognizing the smell as a nuisance.

21
Q

Fill in the blank: The case of __________ involved a dispute over the use of land for noisy events.

A

Murdoch v. McDonald

22
Q

What principle was established in the case of R v. Rimmington (2006)?

A

Public nuisance can arise from the actions of individuals that affect the community.

23
Q

True or False: In the case of Adams v. Ursell (1913), the court ruled that a fish and chip shop was a nuisance.

24
Q

What was the outcome of the case of Tuck v. Firth (1850)?

A

The court ruled that the defendant’s activities were a nuisance due to excessive noise.

25
Q

What was the key issue in the case of Smith v. Scott (2007)?

A

The case involved noise and disruption caused by a tenant’s activities.

26
Q

In the case of Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v. Morris (2004), what was the main concern?

A

The concern was over noise and vibration from nearby railway operations.

27
Q

What was the conclusion in the case of Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v. Morris?

A

The court found the railway operations did not constitute a nuisance.

28
Q

Fill in the blank: The case of __________ addressed the issue of smells from a pig farm.

A

Sturges v. Bridgman

29
Q

What is a key takeaway from the case of McKinnon v. United Kingdom (2006)?

A

It emphasized the balance between property rights and environmental considerations.

30
Q

True or False: In the case of Christie v. Davey (1893), the court ruled that music played at a party was a nuisance.

31
Q

What was the main issue in the case of Henley v. Purdie (2010)?

A

The case involved noise from a nightclub affecting nearby residents.

32
Q

What was the outcome of Henley v. Purdie?

A

The court ruled in favor of the claimant, recognizing the noise as a nuisance.

33
Q

Fill in the blank: The case of __________ focused on the disruption caused by a building site.

A

Harrison v. Southwark LBC

34
Q

What principle did the case of R v. Rimmington (2006) reinforce regarding public nuisance?

A

Public nuisance can be caused by individual actions that affect a wider community.

35
Q

In the case of Fearn v. Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery (2019), what was the main issue?

A

The case involved claims of nuisance due to a viewing platform overlooking a private residence.

36
Q

What was the outcome of Fearn v. Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery?

A

The court ruled that the viewing platform did not constitute a nuisance.