Unit 4b Prt 7: Private Nuisance

Question 1

Claimant

Answer 1

Anyone with a legal interest in the land - Hunter v Canary Wharf

Question 2

Defendant

Answer 2

There are three possible defendants;

1. The creator of the nuisance (Rees v Skerrett)
2. Authoriser of the nuisance (Tetley v Chitty)
3. Adopter of the nuisance (Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

Question 3

Damage

Answer 3

Loss of amenity - any interference with the claimants ability to use his land in a reasonable way

Physical damage - actual damage to land or buildings and plants on the land

Question 4

Factors determining “reasonable” (loss of amenity)

Prt 1

Answer 4

Social utility - the more useful the defendants actions the more likely the claimant will have to put up with it (Dennis v MoD)

Degree of interference - the worse the interference the more likely it is to be a nuisance (Barr v Biffa)

Duration - the more often something happens the more likely it will become a nuisance (Barr v Biffa)

Question 5

Factors determining reasonableness Prt 2

Answer 5

Locality - nuisance is dependant on the locality of the area (laws v florin place)

Malice on behalf of D - if D deliberately does something to annoy it can be a nuisance (hollywood silver fox farm v emmet)

Sensitivity - the claimant cannot engage in sensitive actions then complain for normal damage (Bridlington Relay v YE)

Question 6

Defences

Answer 6

Act of God - (Goldman v Hargrave)

Statutory Authority - (Allen v Gulf oil)

Public interest - public demand and interest for the D’s actions (Dennis v MoD)

Prescription - if D can show he has done the nuisance for 20 years the C cant claim (Sturges v Bridgman)

Question 7

Remedies

Answer 7

Injunction - Miller v Jackson

Damages - Dennis v MoD

Abatement - self help remedy right for claimant to deal with nuisance himself (Lemmon v Webb)