NUISANCE Flashcards
(20 cards)
what is the definition of private nuisance and the case
an unlawful indirect interference with another persons use of land or their right over it
there is a difference between nuisance causing physical damage (prima facie nuisance) & one causing interference
the latter requires proof of unreasonableness (Halsey v Esso Petroleum)
what must c have in nuisance and the case supporting this
proprietary interest (Hunt v Canary Wharf)
what is the rule about nuisance and guest/family members
guest or family members cannot claim as they don’t have proprietary interest
Does the defendant have to cause the interference and the cases supporting this
d need not cause the interference (Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan, Bybrook v Kent) but must be the occupier (Tetley v Chitty)
what are some examples of what amounts to nuisance and cases that go with it (11)
- Heat,Light & dust—> Halsey v Esso Petroleum
- Noise and vibrations—> Sturges v Bridgman
- Smells —>Adams v Ursell
- Hot air —> Robinson v Kilvert
- Lowering the tone of an area —> Laws v Florinplace
- natural cause such as landslide or cliff subsidence where d knew of hazard & failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it —> Leaky v National Trust, Holbeck hall hotel v Scarborough BC)
- TV receptions —> Hunt v Canary Wharf
- oily, smuts, soot, smoke & fumes —> St Helens Smelting v Tipping
- Balls —> Miller v Jackson
- block culvert/pipe —> Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan
- noisy neighbours —> Coventry v Lawrence
what does the court do in nuisance when deciding whether interference was reasonable therefore unlawful
considers several factors
locality
characteristics of the area can make an interference unreasonable
laws v florinplace
duration
must usually be regular & ongoing to be unreasonable
De Keysers hotel v spicer bros, crown river cruises v kimbolton fireworks
Malice shown by d
makes interference unreasonable
hollywood silver fox farm v emmett
particular sensitivity of the claimant
use of land isn’t unreasonable
network rail v morris, fearn v tate
human rights of the claimant
will be considered if there’s violation of article 8 of the ECHR
(right to private family life - Marcic v Thames Water)
statutory authority as a defence for nuisance
Interference was authorised by a law/
statute (Allen v Gulf Oil Refining) → D
must still try avoid nuisance through
using reasonable care & Skill → if activity
goes beyond permission given = no
defence
Barr v Biffa
local authority planning permission as a defence for nuisance
can be taken into account, BUT CAN’T
provide an absolute defence (Coventy v Laurence)
prescription as a defence for nuisance
where nuisance has been ‘uniformly
created by defendant as an actionable
nuisance for specific claimant for over 20
years → Sturges v Bridgman, Coventry v
Lawrance → must be the nuisance
complained of, not the activity generally
which must be considered
act of stranger as a defence for nuisance
interference occurred because of actions of someone over which D had no control —>Sedleign Denfield v O’Callaghan
moving towards nuisance
d may argue = c shouldn’t have been
allowed to disrupt activity of established
residents —>as held in Miller v Jackson
this isn’t a defence however can be
considered when awarding remedies &
deciding if an injunction or damages are
appropriate
social unity (nuisance)
no able to claim social usefulness as reason to continue interference ->Bellew v Cement Co, Miller v Jackson
may be considered when deciding remedies —> Adams v Ursell
damages as a remedy for nuisance
Miller v Jackson. Coventry v Lawrence
held that damages should now be
awarded in preference to an injunction
especially where local authority planning
permission has been granted or as a
public policy issue where there’s public
benefit e.g activity provides jobs or has
social utility as a sporting venue
injunction as a remedy for nuisance
may be ordered —>
prohibitory injunction =prevents d from continuing with use of land completely
OR
part injunction limits part of the activity of the timing of it
Kennaway Thompson
abatement as a remedy for nuisance
where c is entitled to reduce/ mitigate nuisance through self help
Lemon v Webb
