Additional cards Flashcards
(Private nuisance) It is not always clear where nuisance (= interference) ends and trespass (= intrusion) begins.
This old case holds that if the defendant lets a pile of rubbish fall onto the claimant’s wall, this is trespass, but the modern position is unclear.
Gregory v Piper
‘Gregory, stop that rubbish!’
(Private nuisance) It is not always clear where nuisance (= interference) ends and trespass (= intrusion) begins.
The test is usually said to be that of directness. So if the defendant deliberately throws a cricket ball into the claimant’s garden, this is trespass; but if the defendant organises a cricket match and balls are hit over the boundary, this is nuisance, if anything.
Miller v Jackson
‘Do you know the famous cricketer, MJ?’
(Private nuisance - Balancing the rights of the parties) Some judges have insisted that there must be a ‘continuing state of affairs’ before action will lie in nuisance. Yet it is hard to see why this should be necessary, particularly as a ‘state of affairs’ can be discovered in retrospect.
In this case, where fire in the defendant’s house spread to the claimant’s and damaged it, the defective state of the defendant’s electrical wiring, which caused the fire, was found to constitute the ‘contiuing state of affairs’ for this purpose.
In practice, despite occasional dicta to the contrary, there seems to be no difficulty in suing for one-off incidents, provided they are sufficiently severe.
- Spicer v Smee*
- ‘*They had a spicy affair in the town of Smee by the sea.’
(Private nuisance - Balancing the rights of the parties) It is no longer realistic (if indeed it ever was) to draw a very sharp line between physical injury to property and merely aesthetic offences. However, Lord Westbury LC, who drew that distinction, was undoubtedly right that the claimant will have an easier time of it in private nuisance if physical damage can be proved.
St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping
‘The gentlemen from St Helens Smelting never tip.’
(Private nuisance - Balancing the rights of parties) The general character of the area will, of course, be under the oversight of the local planning authority. It is not strictly relevant in nuisance whether the defendant had planning permission. The granting of planning permission differs from statutory authority and confers no immunity from an action in nuisance. However, the granting of planning permission may change the neighbourhood, and this may make it more difficult to establish a nuisance.
Wheeler v Saunders
(Private nuisance - Balancing the rights of parties) Older authorities suggested that a claim in nuisance may be rejected on the ground that the claimant’s unusual sensitivity to the defendant’s activity gives no right of action. However, more recent authorities suggest that there is no special rule here.
If the claimant is the only person to suffer from the defendant’s activities, and only suffers because of an unusual sensitivity on the claimant’s part, then this is a hefty indication that the defendant’s activities are reasonable ones when viewed in the broad way that the law of nuisance requires. But this is simply an application of the ordinary balancing exercise, not a special rule about sensitive claimants.
The claimant ran a recording studio in Croydon. The studio was situated 80 metres from the London to Brighton main line railway track. In 1994, new track circuits were installed which operated the signalling system on the rail track. This circuit system generated an electro-magnetic field which interfered with the use of the electric guitars on the claimant’s premises. This resulted in him losing several clients. The claimant brought an action in nuisance for the interference.
Held: The defendant was not liable. The use of amplified electric guitars fell into the category of extraordinary sensitive equipment. Furthermore the interference was not foreseeable.
Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris
(Private nuisance - Who can sue?) It is usually considered that the claimant can only complain of a private nuisance if the claimant has either possession of the land or has a property right in it.
Others with no property right may not, on the traditional view, sue, however good their right to be on the premises: the tenant’s spouse, for example. This traditional view has now been reaffirmed by the HL in Hunter v Canary Wharf.
Malone v Laskey
‘Ask my wife!’
(Private nuisance - Defence: the defendant not in control at all) The defendant may be liable if the defendant directly created the nuisance, whether it emanates from the defendant’s own land or elsewhere.
Hubbard v Pitt
‘Brad Pitt studied Scientology in the early ’90s before realizing the religion wasn’t for him.’
(Public nuisance) Where a nuisance affects a substantial number of people, it is said to be a ‘public’ nuisance. The nuisance need not interfere with the use of land as such, but may interfere with any aspect of the public’s rights, and may accordingly take many forms.
Making obscene telephone calls may be a public nuisance.
R v Norbury
(Public nuisance) Where a nuisance affects a substantial number of people, it is said to be a ‘public’ nuisance. The nuisance need not interfere with the use of land as such, but may interfere with any aspect of the public’s rights, and may accordingly take many forms.
In this case, Scott J ruled that picketing might amount to a public nuisance. This was on the ground that it was an unreasonable harrassment of those at whom it was directed - even though it did not constitute an assault on them, and had no prospect of preventing them from going where they wished.
Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers
‘They are just such a Paine!’
(Public nuisance - Who is liable?) The test for liability is whether the defendant had control over the nuisance. However, there may be an exception where the defendant erects an artificial projection overhanging the highway: the defendant is sometimes said to be strictly liable for loss caused by these projections.
Tarry v Ashton
(Public nuisance - Who is liable?) The test for liability is whether the defendant had control over the nuisance.
As regards natural objects such as trees, the defendant has a defence if all reasonable care was taken.
Wringe v Cohen
(Public nuisance - Who is liable?) The test for liability is whether the defendant had control over the nuisance.
The general tendency of the modern law is to give strict liability as narrow an interpretation as possible, negligence liability being the norm.
Y, a house-owner, employed a contractor to build a garage on his land. In the course of the work, the contractor laid metal plates over a footpath to protect it, but forgot to remove them whent he work was done. X, a user of the footpath, tripped over the plates, fractured his ankle, and sued Y.
Held: as the laying of the plates was not a necessary part of the work, the strict liability for acts on the highway did not apply. Y was not liable unless he could be shown to be at fault himself.
Rowe v Herman
‘They had an enormous row about it…’
(Strict liabilities relating to land - The principle in Rylands v Fletcher - ‘Escape’) *Something *must escape as a result of the accumulation, but it need not be the accumulation itself.
An accumulation of explosives, which detonate causing damage to neighbouring landowners, is actionable.
Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co
‘The granite rocks were found miles away from the forest!’
(Strict liabilities relating to land - The principle in Rylands v Fletcher - Who may sue?) The usual claimant in these cases is a landowner who has suffered property damage. ‘Landowners’ for this purpose include anyone with an interest in land. Some authorities say there are no other possible claimants (Read v Lyons).
However, this case holds that the claimant may also sue for personal injury (though the decision has to be regarded as very doubtful today).
Hale v Jennings
(Strict liabilities relating to land - The principle in Rylands v Fletcher - Other defences) **The defendant has a defence on proof that the accumulation was created as a reasonable response to a danger facing both the defendant and the claimant (the ‘common enemy’ rule). **
In this case, it was held that an owner or occupier of land is entitled to use or develop his land so as to prevent flood waters coming on to his land. If in times of flood waters which would have entered his land in consequence damage another’s land that does not provide a cause of action in nuisance.
Arscott v Coal Authority
‘What an arse!’
