Nuisance Flashcards Preview

Tort > Nuisance > Flashcards

Flashcards in Nuisance Deck (14):

What is private nuisance?

It protects a person’s enjoyment and use of the land

It’s aim is to achieve a compromise between the parties in order for each party to be free to enjoy their land as they so wish.

They do need to take into account the reasonable needs of their neighbour.


Kennaway v Thompson (1981)

Limiting the time and duration of the nuisance in order to meet the needs of a reasonable neighbour.

The test for whether activity is lawful is reasonableness

It is the leading case in awarding an injunction against that of damages.


Halsey v Esso Petroleum (1961)

When an action caused physical damage it is automatically unreasonable

When the harm complaint of is inconvenience or discomfort (e.g noise and smell) the court looks at a number of factors in order to determine whether it is reasonable.


St. Helens Smelting v Tipping (1865)

To succeed in private nuisance a Claimant must show:

- that damage has been suffered

- that the interference is unlawful


Private nuisance can be claimed in which two forms?

- Indirect physical damage to property

- loss of amenity (loss of comfort) in the claimant’s use of the land. This does not include personal injury

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)


Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

Is the noise of a reasonable type and level in the context of neighbourhood


Robinson v Kilvert (1889)

The use of the land is sensitive i.e. is the activity specialist and unreasonable in the circumstances.


McKinnon Industries Ltd v Walker (1951)

This does not prevent the Defendant from being liable if the interference is such as would foreseeably affected an ordinary user of the land.


Andrea v Selfridge and Co (1938)

Building works, there will inevitably be some interference with the use an enjoyment of neighbouring properties, but if the works are carried out with reasonable skill and care no actionable nuisance has been committed.

Is the amount of noise material/substantial, rather than merely irritating? (Halsey v Esso Petroleum)


Tetley v Chitty (1986)

Landlord will generally not be found liable in nuisances cases due to parting way with the land.

They can however be found liable should they be aware of the reason for the letting i.e. to put on a music festival therefore the landlord has expressly or implied agreed to the nuisance.


Shelfer v City of London Lighting (1895)

Leading case in which the court awarded damages instead of an injunction against the Defendant.


Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

If something is brought onto land that is likely to do mischief escapes, then the person who is in possession of the land will be ‘prima facie’ liable for all the damage that is a natural consequence of its escape.


Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994)

Considers foreseeability of harm / was the leak in Rylands foreseeable?


Reed v J Lyon and Co Ltd (1947)

Defines non-natural use of the land

It must be some special use that brings with it increased danger to others and must not be ordinary use of the land.