7. Nuisance

Question 0

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 0

Requirement that C have interest in land restored

Not possible to claim for PI in private nuisance

Court refused to recognise claim for interference with TV reception caused by large tower block

Question 1

Bamford v Turnley

Answer 1

Private nuisance defined as ‘any continuous activity or state of affairs causing substantial and unreasonable interference with a plaintiff’s land or his use of enjoyment of that

C must show nuisance constitutes ‘unlawful’ (i.e. unreasonable) interference with his enjoyment or use of the land

Nuisance is a ‘rule of give and take, live and let live’

Question 2

Thomas v NUM

Answer 2

Create a nuisance can be sued, even if he is not the occupier of the land

Question 3

Leakey v National Trust

Answer 3

Occupier can be sued

Question 4

Holbeck v Scarborough

Answer 4

Occupier won’t be expected to bankrupt himself to abate nuisance

Question 5

St Helens v Tipping

Answer 5

HL distinguishes between

1. Physical damage to property and
2. Sensible personal discomfort (SPD)

Character of neighbourhood only relevant to SPD

Question 6

Cambridge v Eastern Counties

Answer 6

Storage of chemicals an ‘almost classic case’ of non-natural use

For Rylands to apply, D must have known ought reasonably to have foreseen that the thing which escaped could cause damage

Question 7

Sedleigh v O’Callaghan

Answer 7

What counts as reasonable use is determined by the specific context

Question 8

Kennaway v Thompson

Answer 8

Time and duration

Partial injunction

Question 9

Spicer v Smee

Answer 9

Fire caused by defective wiring illustrates underlying dangerous state of affairs

Question 10

Sturges v Bridgman

Answer 10

Character of area relevant in determining whether use of land is unlawful

Fact C moved to nuisance which was already present is immaterial

Question 11

Adams v Ursell

Answer 11

Fumes from fish and chip shop held to be nuisance in residential area

Question 12

Laws v Florinplace

Answer 12

Men of sleazy disposition attending sex shop in residential area held to be nuisance

Question 13

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

Answer 13

Planning permission will not authorise a nuisance

Grant of planning permission under statutory powers is not the same as statutory authority - does not constitute a defence

Question 14

Gillingham BC v Medway

Answer 14

Planning permission may alter the character of the area so that what was once a nuisance in that area is no longer a nuisance or vice versa

Question 15

Watson v Croft Promo-Sport

Answer 15

Nature of rural area unchanged after planning permission granted to build motor circuit, even after it has been running for 40 years

Question 16

Lawrence v Fen Tigers

Answer 16

Planning permission followed by the carrying out of the permitted activity over time may have effect of changing character of locality

Question 17

Robinson v Kilvert

Answer 17

No nuisance where paper is damaged due to its abnormal sensitivity to hear

Question 18

McKinnon v Walker

Answer 18

Ds liable for the full extent of loss to C’s sensitive orchids, since their activities had also damaged other less sensitive plans

Question 19

Network Rail Infrastructure v CJ Morris

Answer 19

Doubts raised about abnormal sensitivity - better to view such cases in terms of foreseeability

Question 20

Christie v Davey

Answer 20

Nuisance more likely where malice is involved

Question 21

Andrae v Selfridge

Answer 21

If D has shown that of care, this is likely to count in C’s favour

Question 22

Miller v Jackson

Answer 22

Wrong to expect C to bear too great a burden for benefit of public at large

Court refused injunction granted order for compensation only

Question 23

Bellow v Irish Cement

Answer 23

Court orders closure of cement works causing nuisance, though it was the only one in Ireland at a time when building was public necessity

Question 24

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining

Answer 24

No liability where nuisance is inevitable consequence of activity carried out on basis of statutory authority

Question 25

Lemmon v Webb

Answer 25

C entitled to cut down overhanging branches (abatement)

Question 26

Attorney General v PYA Quarries

Answer 26

Public nuisance defined as 'acts or omissions of the defendant that materially affect the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects'

Question 27

Attorney General v Hastings Corporation

Answer 27

No exact number to determine if there is a 'class' - depends on circumstances of case

Question 28

Rose v Miles

Answer 28

Individual suing in public nuisance must have suffered special loss over and above rest of class

Question 29

Tate and Lyle v GLC

Answer 29

Individual need not have interest in land to sue under public nuisance

Question 30

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 30

Brings onto land and accumulates there Anything likely to do mischief Escape Non-natural use of land

Question 31

Transco v Stockport

Answer 31

C can claim only for property damage under Rylands For use to be non-natural, it must be 'extraordinary and unusual'

Question 32

Read v Lyons

Answer 32

C must have interest in land to sue

Question 33

Giles v Walker

Answer 33

No liability under Rylands where object causing harm grows on land naturally and so was not brought there by D

Question 34

Stannard v Gore

Answer 34

Tyres stored on D's property caught fire, which spread to C's property Rylands not apply because it was not the tyres that had escaped

Question 34

Shiffman v Order of St John

Answer 34

Possible to impose liability for relatively safe things if they can escape in way that would make them dangerous

Question 35

Rickards v Lothian

Answer 35

Non-natural use of land is 'Some special use bringing with it increased danger'

Question 36

Musgrove v Pandelis

Answer 36

Storing car with full tank in garage was non-natural use of land

Question 37

Cammidge v Young

Answer 37

Musgrove not followed

Question 38

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

Answer 38

Consent can be implied if a substance has been accumulated for the common benefit of C and D

Question 39

Dunn v Birmingham Canal

Answer 39

Act of C valid defence where he digs under D's canal, causing it to flood onto his land

Question 40

Perry v Kendrick's Transport

Answer 40

Defence of act of stranger only applies if D has not been negligent

Question 41

Nichols v Marsland

Answer 41

Defence of Act of God is restricted to exceptional and unforeseeable natural occurrences

Question 42

McKenna v British Aluminium

Answer 42

Some suggestion of relaxation of interest in land requirement under pressure from HRA

Question 43

Dennis v MoD

Answer 43

National security doesn't stop claim in public nuisance succeeding But damages rather than injunction awarded Assessment of damages under common-law principles would provide 'just satisfaction' under HRA