Introduction

Question 1

What is private nuisance?

Answer 1

Any activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with:

1) C’s land (physical)
2) C’s use or enjoyment of that land/amenity (intangible)

So - unreasonable interference with the claimant’s interest.

Newark: calls PN vague

Question 2

PN vs trespass to land

Answer 2

per se for trespass

For PN, need unlawful conduct that materially affects comfort and convenience

Question 3

Physical damage to land

Answer 3

Wringe v Cohen: D’s building was in disrepair and collapsed onto C’s property

Sedleigh-denfield: Drain blocked -> flooded land

More likely to grand remedy for physical harm as a tangible interference with land (St Helen’s Smelting)

Question 4

Intangible damage to land

Answer 4

EG - noise, smells, dust

Thompson-Schwab: Brothel in nice neighbourhood

Harder to get remedy for intangible as an interference with comfort and convenience, and courts will use balancing exercise between C’s rights and D’s liberty (St Helen’s Smelting)

Question 5

Need for proprietary interest

Answer 5

Khorasandjian v Bush: telephone calls harassment. Used PN to fill lacuna. C lived with parents and had no proprietary interest so overturned in Hunter v Canary Wharf

Question 6

Balancing C’s rights with D’s liberty

Answer 6

Antrim Truck Centre: should always (regardless of physical or intangible) consider whether interference is unreasonable

Bamford v Turnley: Fair accommodation of competing land-use claims

Question 7

Locality

Answer 7

What might be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey (Sturges v Bridgman)

However:
Locality may be used in favour of the defendant when private rights of C clash with public interest (Gillingham v Medway - economic revival)

Barr v Biffa Waste Management: had permit to deposit waste. Smells bad so C complains. Trial judge uses Gillingham to favour D.
CA rejects and says to use a reasonableness test. Was unreasonable to put up with the smell. Distinguished from Gillingham as that was economic revival.

Question 8

How to balance interference with amenity

Answer 8

Multifactoral balancing exercise - consider:

1) Duration (a one-off can suffice (British Celanese)
2) Intensity (if temporary, will need substantial (Matania))
3) Malice (music hours imposed (Christie v Davey)
4) Public benefit (could use damages over injunction as compromise)
5) Abnormal sensitivity

Question 9

Remoteness and PN

Answer 9

Is the harm reasonably foreseeable?

Wagon Mound (No.1): Can recover for reasonably foreseeable types of loss

Howarth Textbook: D not responsible for damage that flows from C’s extra vulnerability.

Question 10

Who can be sued

Answer 10

Creator
Occupier
Landlord (if authorise nuisance, have obligation to repair, nuisance existed prior to letting)
- Landlords will be held liable for PN created by their tenants where they have authorised it or directly participated in it (Coventry v Lawrence)

Question 11

Reasonableness and PN

Answer 11

Reasonableness refers to the OUTCOME of D’s conduct, not whether D’s actual conduct was reasonable.

Concern with outcome not conduct (Deleware Mansions)

Question 12

Standard of Liability

Answer 12

Physical - effectively strict

Intangible - expectations of residents are relevant, the strictness is tempered (see Cambridge Waters)