Nuisance

Question 1

definition

Answer 1

“unlawful unreasonable interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land”

Question 2

explanation after definition 1

Answer 2

-focus is on whether the interference is unreasonable, if so will be a nuisance and and actionable

Question 3

explanation after definition (2)

Answer 3

-it does not matter if the d had taken reasonable care to not be a nuisance, in (cambridge water) Lord Goff said “the fact that d had taken all reasonable care will not exonerate him

Question 4

explanation after definition (3)

Answer 4

• c must demonstrate an appropriate legal interest in the land

Question 5

there are 3 stages

Answer 5

which must be considered to decide if the intervene amounts to a nuisance

Question 6

location

Answer 6

must be considered (leeman v montague) (industrial/rural/commercial/residental)
SR: physical damage to land then location is irrelevant (St helen’s smelting v tipping)

Question 7

duration

Answer 7

the more long lasting an interference, the more likely it is to be a nuisance (cunard v antifyre)
private nuisances are interferences for a substantial length of time

Question 8

SR for duration

Answer 8

even if short in duration, could still be u reasonable due to time of day (De Keysers Royal Hotel)

an interference which is short in duration may still be a nuisance if it causes damage to land (crown river cruises v kimbolton)

Question 9

motive and malice of d

Answer 9

if activity if motivated my malice then it is likely to be unreasonable (christy v davey)

Question 10

SR for motive and malice (2)

Answer 10

interference with ds recreational activities (hunter v canary whalf)
will fail

if cs is abnormally sensitive or their use of land is particularly sensitive, the d would not be liable u less activity would amount to a nuisance to a reasonable person using the land in a normal manner (robinson v kilvert)

Question 11

defences

Answer 11

• stat authority, act of parl gives permission (allen v gulf oil
• planning permiss, character of neighbourhood has changed and thus interference is reasonable or not (Gillingham council v medway)
• prescription, tolerates over for 20 years
  -volenti non fit injuria, c expressly or impliedly consents to nuisance
• contributory negligence (law reform contrib negli act 1945) compensation reduced according to responsibility for damage

Question 12

remedies

Answer 12

-damages, awarded where damage done by nuisance is unquantifiable, past lost and inconvenience
-injunctions, equitable remedies at courts discretion, force d to stop doing something
- court may refuse if not in public interest, award damages instead (miller v jackson)
- can be tailored to meet exact circumstances (kennaway v thompson)
-Abatement, form of self help, entitled to take reasonable steps to lessen the nuisance (lemmon v webb)