Nuisance

Question 1

airspace trespass cases- can be committed accidentally

Answer 1

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

Question 2

airspace trespass is only possible how far up

Answer 2

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

Question 3

actionable trespass below the ground- oilfield

Answer 3

Star Energy Ltd v Bocardo SA [2010]

Question 4

what are the available defences for trespass?

Answer 4

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

Question 5

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

Answer 5

Esso Petroleum v Southport Corporation [1956]

Question 5

defence of necessity failed- crops; protesters

Answer 5

Monsanto Plc v Tilly [2000]

Question 6

trespass ab initio principle

Answer 6

The Six Carpenters [1610]

Question 7

trespass ab initio hard to suffice against police

Answer 7

Chic Fashions Ltd [1967]; Pasmore [1934]

Question 8

Highlight the differences between nuisance and trespass of land

Answer 8

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

Question 9

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

Answer 9

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

Question 10

the opening case on nuisance- industrial revolution

Answer 10

St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping [1865]

Question 11

who has legal standing to sue in nuisance?

Answer 11

a person holding a proprietary interest

Question 12

latest authority for legal standing in order to sue in nuisance

Answer 12

Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]

Question 13

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

Answer 13

Hunter 1997

Question 14

children sue in nuisance- exception to proprietary interest requirement

Answer 14

McKenna [2002]

Question 15

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

Answer 15

Southwark LBC v Mills [2001]

Question 16

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

Answer 16

Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd [1996]

Question 17

intensity of interference- floor to ceiling windows

Answer 17

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

Question 18

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

Answer 18

Sturges v Bridgeman [1879]

Question 19

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

Answer 19

Baxter v Camden LBC [2001]

Question 20

planning permission changes the nature of locality- commercial port

Answer 20

Gillingham [1993]

Question 21

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

Answer 21

Wheeler [1996]

Question 22

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

Answer 22

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

Question 23

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

Answer 23

the sensitivity of the claimant; bad intentions of Defendant

Question 24

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

Answer 24

Robinson v Kilvert [1889]

Question 25

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

Answer 25

McKinnon Industries Ltd v Walker [1951]

Question 26

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

Answer 26

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

Question 27

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

Answer 27

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

Question 28

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

Answer 28

Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895]

Question 29

statutory authority is a defence to nuisance

Answer 29

Manchester Corporation v Farnworth [1930]

Question 30

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

Answer 30

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981]

Question 31

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

Answer 31

Hatton v UK [2003]

Question 32

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

Answer 32

Sturges v Bridgman [1879]

Question 33

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

Answer 33

Miller v Jackson [1977]

Question 34

injunction awarded- pub landlord case

Answer 34

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1894]

Question 35

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

Answer 35

Kennaway v Thompson [1981]

Question 36

damages for personal discomfort- pig's smell case

Answer 36

Bone v Seale [1975]

Question 37

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

Answer 37

Halsey v Esso Petroleum Ltd [1961]

Question 38

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

Answer 38

Marcic [2003]- claim disallowed

Question 39

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

Answer 39

Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003]

Question 40

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

Answer 40

- 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

Question 41

Australian case expressly incorporated negligence into the Rylands v fletcher 'tort'

Answer 41

Burnie Port [1994]

Question 42

Further 2 cases strengthening the requirements of R v F

Answer 42

Cambridge Water [1994]; Transco

Question 43

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

Answer 43

Cambridge Water

Question 44

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

Answer 44

Claimant has to have a proprietary interest in the land

Question 45

non-natural use of land

Answer 45

Rickards v Lothian [1913]

Question 46

Defences to action under R v F

Answer 46

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