23.1 Private Nuisance

Question 1

Private Nuisance Definition

Answer 1

“The Unlawful, Indirect Interference with an individual’s enjoyment or use of his or her land”

Question 2

What does someone need in the land to make a claim of Private Nuisance?

Answer 2

Interest in the land
(Hunter v Canary Wharf)

Question 3

What are the 3 elements of private nuisance?

Answer 3

1. Unlawful indirect interference with land
2. Damage to the claimant
3. Interference was unreasonable

Question 4

First element of private nuisance:
3 examples of interferences

Answer 4

1. Smell (Wheeler v Copas)
2. Balls hit onto land (Miller v Jackson)
3. Fumes

Question 5

Third element of Private nuisance
What are the 5 factors that courts look at to decide if an interference is unreasonable?

Answer 5

1. Locality (Sturges v Bridgman)
2. Duration (Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Cruises)
3. Malice (Emmet v Hollywood Silverfox Farm)
4. Sensitivity of C (Network Rail v Morris)
5. Social Benefit (Miller v Jackson)

Question 6

What 3 Remedies are there for Private Nuisance?

Answer 6

1. Damages
2. Injunctions
3. Abatement

Question 7

4 Defences to Private Nuisance

Answer 7

1. Prescription
2. C moved to nuisance
3. Statutory Authority
4. Volenti

Question 8

(Hunter v Canary Wharf)

Answer 8

D must have Interest in the land to make a claim

Question 9

(Wheeler v Copas)

Answer 9

Smell amounts to an interference

Question 10

Locality

Answer 10

Where the nuisance is occuring and how close the C is to it.
(Sturges v Bridgman)

Question 11

(Sturges v Bridgman)

Answer 11

Locality case
“what might be a nuisance in belgrave square might not be in Bermondsey”

Question 12

Duration of nuisance

Answer 12

Longer nuisance occurs more likely it is to amount to a claim.
(Crown River Ltd v Kimbolton)
- 20 mins was enough

Question 13

(Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks)

Answer 13

Duration case
- A 20 minute firework display amounted to a nuisance.

Question 14

Malice

Answer 14

Malicious acts more likely to be a nuisance
(Emmett v Hollywood Silverfox Farm)

Question 15

(Emmett v Hollywood Silverfox Farm)

Answer 15

Malice case
- Brudda was shooting when the farm wanted to breed mink and ofc they didn’t breed because of his shooting.
(he was doing ts on purpose)

Question 16

Sensitivity of Claimant

Answer 16

C being abnormaly sensitive to something means it’s not a claim
(Network Rail v Morris)

Question 17

(Network Rail v Morris)

Answer 17

Sensitivity of C case
- Trains going by mashed w a guys guitar and it was deemed too sensitive.

Question 18

Social Benefit

Answer 18

If there is a social benefit to the nuisance it is less likely it is one.
(Miller v Jackson)

Question 19

(Miller v Jackson)

Answer 19

Social benefit case
- Cricket balls being hit into garden was not a nuisance because of the social benefit the ground provided.