private nuisance Flashcards

1
Q

What are the 3 elements to private nuisance?

A
  • There has to be an interference with the land and the interference must be indirect.
  • The interference with land must be unlawful.

-C must be able to sue D (both parties must be eligible).

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

Which case involved a physical interference from tree roots growing on C’s land causing damage to the ground?

A

Davey v Harrow Corporation

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

Which case involved a physical interference from flooding causing damage to C’s land?

A

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

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

Which case said loud noise can be non-physical damage?

A

Christie v Davey

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

Which case said that bad smells can be non-physical interference?

A

Wheeler v Saunders

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

What did Halsey v Esso Petroleum say in relation to a non-physical interference?

A

Physical damage will always be an interference but non-physical interference must make it physically unpleasant to be on the land.

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

Which case said that emotional distress is enough to count as an interference?

A

Thompson-Schwab v Costaki

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

What did AG v Doughty say?

A

Blocking a view is not interfering with the use of enjoyment of land, nice views are simply things of delight.

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

What did Hunter v Canary Wharf say?

A

Watching TV is not using or enjoying land, it is a recreational activity.

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

What is a continuing interference and which case is an example of this?

A

A natural hazard develops and D fails to take precautions to stop it interfering with other land. Leakey v National Trust.

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

How did Southwark v Mills define an unlawful interference?

A

Unlawful means unreasonable. An unreasonable use is only what goes beyond acceptable behaviour.

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

What are the 5 factors the court considers when deciding if D’s use of land is unreasonable?

A
  • Sensitivity of C/ reasonably foreseeable damage
  • Locality
  • Duration
  • Malice
  • Social benefit
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What does sensitivity of C/ reasonably foreseeable damage mean?

A

This looks at whether C has only suffered due to some abnormal sensitivity or if the interference was foreseeable.

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

What is the case and legal principle for sensitivity of C/ reasonably foreseeable damage?

A

Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris. In deciding if D’s use was unreasonable, the court should consider if it was reasonably foreseeable that the use would cause this damage.

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

What does locality mean?

A

Considering what is reasonable based on the area.

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

What are the cases and legal principles for locality?

A

Sturges v Bridgman. What is reasonable for an area depends on its character and make up.

St Helen’s Smelting Co. v Tipping Ltd. The unreasonableness of D’s act should be based on what is expected of the area but if physical damage is caused, this will always be unreasonable no matter the area.

17
Q

What does duration mean?

A

Considers when the interference happens and how long it lasts. Normally a one off event is unlikely to be a nuisance.

18
Q

What are the cases and legal principles for duration?

A

Halsey v Esso Petroleum. What is reasonable at one time of day may not be reasonable at another time.

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks. Even a temporary interference can be unreasonable if the interference is severe enough.

19
Q

What does malice mean?

A

Considers if D was acting maliciously i.e. trying to be a nuisance.

20
Q

What is the case and legal principle for malice?

A

Christie v Davey. Using one’s land with bad intentions will be an unreasonable use.

21
Q

What does social benefit mean?

A

This considers if D’s use of land has some benefit to the community.

22
Q

What is the case and legal principle for social benefit?

A

Miller v Jackson. Reasonable use should consider how that use benefits the community at large. In this case, what the community gained from the ground outweighed the disruption to the individual.

23
Q

What does Hunter v Canary Wharf say in regards to who can sue?

A

C must have a proprietary interest in the land being affected. This means owners and tenants can sue but not people who happen to be on the land at the time.

24
Q

Who can be sued?

A

The creator of the nuisance or the owner of the land in certain circumstances e.g. Tetley v Chitty.

25
Q

What are the 2 defences specific to private nuisance?

A
  • Prescription

- Planning permission

26
Q

What is meant by prescription?

A

Where D has carried out the nuisance on C for 20 years, D is prescribed the right to continue that activity. Sturges v Bridgman.

27
Q

What is meant by planning permission?

A

Wheeler v Saunders- planning permission must change the nature of the locality to stop the use being unreasonable.

28
Q

What are the different types of injunction?

A

Prohibitive injunction- makes D stop doing something.
Mandatory injunction- makes D do something.

Perpetual- D has to stop the activity completely.
Partial- limits what D can do.

29
Q

Which case says that damages may be a more common form of remedy in future cases?

A

Coventry v Lawrence.

30
Q

What is meant by an abatement?

A

Letting C do something to prevent the nuisance.

31
Q

What is the definition of private nuisance?

A

Private nuisance is defined in common law as an indirect and unlawful interference with someone’s use or enjoyment of land, coming from neighbouring land.