Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort Law > Nuisance > Flashcards

Nuisance Flashcards

1
Q

airspace trespass cases- can be committed accidentally

A

Laiqat v Majib [2005]; Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co [1957]- advertisement sign

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

airspace trespass is only possible how far up

A

Leigh [1978]- claim rejected for a light aircraft flying above his property- above the level of an ordinary user of land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

actionable trespass below the ground- oilfield

A

Star Energy Ltd v Bocardo SA [2010]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what are the available defences for trespass?

A

necessity- public or private interest
legal justification- arrest
Permission- licence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

defence of necessity successful- case; ship, oil, sea

A

Esso Petroleum v Southport Corporation [1956]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

defence of necessity failed- crops; protesters

A

Monsanto Plc v Tilly [2000]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

trespass ab initio principle

A

The Six Carpenters [1610]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

trespass ab initio hard to suffice against police

A

Chic Fashions Ltd [1967]; Pasmore [1934]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Highlight the differences between nuisance and trespass of land

A

T- direct interference- actionable without proof of damage
N- indirect interference- actionable upon proof of damage to the interest in the land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

3 things that may ne included in an action for private nuisance

A

-actual damage to land- physical
-interference with amenity interests
-encroachment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

the opening case on nuisance- industrial revolution

A

St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping [1865]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

who has legal standing to sue in nuisance?

A

a person holding a proprietary interest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

latest authority for legal standing in order to sue in nuisance

A

Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

loss of TV signal is not capable of creating the grounds for a claim in nuisance

A

Hunter 1997

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

children sue in nuisance- exception to proprietary interest requirement

A

McKenna [2002]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

everyone must put up with some interference from their neighbours from time to time

A

Southwark LBC v Mills [2001]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

physical damage is likely to succeed in nuisance- fireworks; boat;

A

Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd [1996]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

intensity of interference- floor to ceiling windows

A

Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what would be nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey- the nature of locality

A

Sturges v Bridgeman [1879]

19
Q

locality criteria is disproportionate between populations and promotes a class divide- noise; high density housing; low cost

A

Baxter v Camden LBC [2001]

20
Q

planning permission changes the nature of locality- commercial port

A

Gillingham [1993]

21
Q

planning permission was merely expansive and not a defence to nuisance- pigs’ farm

A

Wheeler [1996]

22
Q

planning permission- an area of uncertainty- when does it act as a defence to nuisance claims? case with racing track in a rural area

A

Watson v Croft Promosport Ltd- racing track in rural area=nuisance, despite planning permission

23
Q

what factors are sometimes considered, if relevant to the facts? clue: character of claimant/defendant

A

the sensitivity of the claimant; bad intentions of Defendant

24
Q

sensitivity of claimant’s trade- injunction refused- brown paper

A

Robinson v Kilvert [1889]

25
Q

If nuisance is actionable, damages awarded also cover the sensitivity of activity- clue: orchids

A

McKinnon Industries Ltd v Walker [1951]

26
Q

nuisance also has an element of foreseeability as to the damage- guitars; railway signal

A

Network Rail v Morris [2004]- it was not reasonable to expect Network Rail to foresee the interference caused

27
Q

defendant’s bad intentions usually allow for the claimant to succeed-
music teacher; annoyance; reversal
foxes; shooting

A

Christie v Davey [1893]
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett [1936]

28
Q

malice from defendant not always taken into account- water supply; drainage

A

Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895]

29
Q

statutory authority is a defence to nuisance

A

Manchester Corporation v Farnworth [1930]

30
Q

total defence to nuisance claims given by statute is a high threshold- gulf oil case

A

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981]

31
Q

nuisance claims which are protected by statute v HRA- noise from Heathrow Airport

A

Hatton v UK [2003]

32
Q

20 years’ prescription is a defence to nuisance from when nuisance began

A

Sturges v Bridgman [1879]

33
Q

cricket case- injunction awarded; than only damages based on public v private interests- subjective nature

A

Miller v Jackson [1977]

34
Q

injunction awarded- pub landlord case

A

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1894]

35
Q

a compromise between neighbouring users of land- partial injunction- boat racing case

A

Kennaway v Thompson [1981]

36
Q

damages for personal discomfort- pig’s smell case

A

Bone v Seale [1975]

37
Q

damages could be awarded for any property- clothes hung on washing line

A

Halsey v Esso Petroleum Ltd [1961]

38
Q

HRA and sewage issues- is a fair balance being struck?

A

Marcic [2003]- claim disallowed

39
Q

buy-out the right to continue the nuisance- MoD case- no injunction awarded

A

Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003]

40
Q

what are the requirements for a successful claim under Rylands v Fletcher?

A
  • D brings on his land for his own purposes, something likely to do mischief
    -if it escapes
    -which represents a non-ordinary use of land
    -and causes foreseeable damage of the relevant type
41
Q

Australian case expressly incorporated negligence into the Rylands v fletcher ‘tort’

A

Burnie Port [1994]

42
Q

Further 2 cases strengthening the requirements of R v F

A

Cambridge Water [1994]; Transco

43
Q

the requirement of foreseeability of risk led to overlaps with negligence. Which case mentioned this?

A

Cambridge Water

44
Q

Who can sue under R v F? clue: nuisance requirement

A

Claimant has to have a proprietary interest in the land

45
Q

non-natural use of land

A

Rickards v Lothian [1913]

46
Q

Defences to action under R v F

A

Fault of C or consent- Ponting [1894]
escape caused by the unforeseeable act of a 3rd party- Lothian [1913]
act of God- Greenock [1917]
Statutory Authority- also applies

Tort Law (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions