Specific Interests

Question 1

Webster v Lord Advocate

Answer 1

• noise from workers was intolerable in neighbourhood
• pursuers should not have to put in measures to prevent nuisance
• interest cannot overrule law – public interest defence not allowed
• interdict suspended 4 months to consider alternatives.

Question 2

Kennedy v Glenbelle

Answer 2

• physical damage held to be nuisance
• removal of load bearing wall caused major implications to property above
• culpa (fault) can be established by:

intention, malice, recklessness, negligence, conduct which creates risk of abnormal danger

Question 3

Watt v Jamieson

Answer 3

• nuisance can arise even if defender did not intend to cause inconvenience
• nuisance does not need to be non-natural, unreasonable, unusual

Question 4

Marcic v Thames Water Utilities

Answer 4

• TWU statutory obliged to connect properties to network
• sewerage occurred – too many properties to connect
• not actionable breach of art8 – he should use complaints procedure/regulator in place

Question 5

O v Rhodes

Answer 5

• ex-wife sought interdict of husband publishing memoirs to prevent emotional distress to son
• no delict without any evidence of intention to cause physical harm/recognised psychiatric illness

Question 6

Henderson v Chief Cons

Answer 6

• industrial dispute – workers detained peacefully by police
• justified for public policy reasons
• however removal of bras infringement of liberty and privacy not justified in law

Question 7

Reynolds v Times Newspaper

Answer 7

“Reynolds factors”: responsible journalism. Considered in qualified privilege.

Seriousness, nature, source, verification steps taken, urgency, information status, tone, timing of publication

Question 8

Campbell v MGN

Answer 8

Action successful despite no prior relationship. Law imposes duty of confidence. Information exposed was worthy of protection.

Question 9

Mosley v Newsgroup Newspapers

Answer 9

First stage of action is to demonstrate reasonable expectation of privacy. This can exist despite no prior relationship.

Question 10

Maguire v Charles Mcneil

Answer 10

• interdict for new machinery refused
• area was largely industrial
• no more nuisance than already there

Question 11

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 11

• TV reception interference not actionable nuisance
• title to sue: owners/tenants
• family members could not sue

Question 12

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 12

• planning authorities no authority to authorise nuisance

- no defence that planning permission granted

Question 13

Ashley v CC

Answer 13

• CC vicarious liable for police officer who shot dead
• in defending a criminal assault must show genuine belief that defendant about to be attacked
• in defending a civil claim - show honest and reasonable belief

Question 14

S v Sec of State

Answer 14

• any detention, regardless of length will equate to award of damages
• no public interest where detaining not justifiable

Question 15

McKinney v Chief Cons

Answer 15

• must establish malice in power of arrest cases

Question 16

Munro v Brown

Answer 16

• defamation can relate to professional misconduct/incompetence
• unsporting conduct by curler failed
• defendant genuinely believed he had been misinformed

Question 17

Chrisite v Robertson

Answer 17

• words uttered without intention, considered sympathetically
• no action for comment had been made in ‘heat of moment’