Nuisance Flashcards Preview

Tort > Nuisance > Flashcards

Flashcards in Nuisance Deck (61):
1

Definition of private nuisance

Bamford v Turnley: any continuous activity or state of affairs causing substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's land or his use or enjoyment of that land

2

Claimant must have a legal interest in land

Malone v Laskey, confirmed in Hunter v Canary Wharf

3

Creator of nuisance can be sued

Thomas v NUM

4

Occupier of land can be sued

Leakey v National Trust

5

Occupier may be liable for contractors where the tasks he asks them to do cause a reasonably foreseeable and inevitable nuisance

Matania (though surprising that building work formed private nuisance - people expected to put up with a certain amount of give and take - Bamford v Turnley)

6

Occupier only liable for nuisance created by a trespasser if he continued or adopted the nuisance

Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan ; Page Motors v Epsom

7

Occupier liable for failing to take reasonable steps to abate the naturally occurring nuisance that was reasonable foreseeable

Goldman v Hargrave

8

Occupier not expected to bankrupt himself in the process of averting a naturally occurring nuisance

Holbeck Hall v Scarborough

9

Landlord not liable unless he created it, authorised it or knew/ought to have known of the nuisance at the time of letting the property

Tetley v Chitty

10

Council liable for gypsies as they had allowed them to stay on land

Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council; Page Motors v Epsom

11

Water may be indirect interference

Sedleigh-Denfield

12

Recovery can only be made for damage that is foreseeable

Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather

13

SPD and physical damage to property are recoverable in private nuisance

St Helen's Smelting.
Lemmon v Webb for physical damage to property

14

Not all interference with enjoyment can be claimed - loss of TV signal

Hunter v Canary Wharf

15

If user is reasonable, defendant will not be liable. If user is unreasonable, D will be liable

Cambridge Water Company v Easter Counties Leather

16

Bamford v Turnley

rule of give and take, live and let live.

17

Balancing act between rights of occupier to do what he wants with land and rights of neighbour to have quiet enjoyment of land

Sedleigh-Denfield

18

Time and Duration of nuisance

Kennaway v Thompson

19

Single incident may be a nuisance if it illustrates an underlying state of affairs

Spicer v Smee

20

Character of neighbourhoos is only relevant to SPD (NOT physicial damage)

St Helen's Smelting

21

Sturges v Bridgman

What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey

22

Fumes from fish and chip shop nuisance in residential area

Adams v Ursell

23

Sex shop in residential area was nuisance

Laws v Florinplace

24

Planning permission will not authorise a nuisance, but it may alter the character of the area

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

25

Claimant who is abnormally sensitive cannot claim the activities that would not affect the ordinary occupier are a nuisance to him alone (heat sensitive paper)

Robinson v Kilvert

26

If reasonable occupier would be affected, claimant can clam for full extent of injuries, even though these are increased by his sensitivies

McKinnon Industries v Walker (orchids)

27

Railway signalling interfered with electric guitars in recording studio - courts should not be too strict applying abnormal sensitivity

Network Rail v CJ Morris

28

More likely to be a nuisance if no real justification for behaviour/just to annoy claimant

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

29

Defendant's lack of care likely to count in claimant's favour

Andrae v Selfridge

30

If defendant has behaved in excessive manner, this may indicate that he is being unreasonable

Farrer v Nelson

31

Public utility does not justify commission of a nuisance

Adams v Ursell; Miller v Jackson; Dennis v MOD

32

Claimant can still sue for a nuisance which was present when the claimant moved to the property

Miller v Jackson; Sturges v Bridgman

33

Prescription counts from the time that a claimant could have complained, not the time the activity started

Sturges v Bridgman

34

Statutory Authority may be a defence if he exercised due care

Allen v Gulf Oil

35

Damages

Dennis v MOD

36

Damages for personal injury not recoverable

Hunter; Transco

37

Partial injunction

Kennaway v Thompson

38

Abatement

Lemmon v Webb

39

HRA

McKenna v British Aluminium; Dobson

40

Public nuisance definition

"acts or omissions of the defendant that materially affects the comfort and convenience of life of a class of HM's subjects" Attorney General v PYA Quarries

41

Effect of nuisance must be sufficiently widespread; exact number of people affected depends on facts of case

R v Rimmington; AG v Hastings Corporation

42

Pop concert

AG of Ontario v Orange

43

Blocking a canal

Rose v Miles

44

Acid house party

R v Shorrock

45

Individual claimant does not need interest in land

Tate and Lyle v GLC

46

Pure economic loss can be recovered

Rose v Miles

47

Rylands v Fletch

the person who for his own purpose brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril

48

Thistles not brought onto land; no liability

Giles v Walker

49

Acid

Rainham v Belvedere

50

Explosives

Read v Lyons

51

no element of escape

Read v Lyons

52

Rickards v Lothian

Non-natural user = some special use bringin with it increased danger to others; not merely the ordinary use of the land or use as is proper for general benefit of community

53

Chemicals are classic case of non-natural user

Cambridge Water Company v Easter Counties Leather

54

Piping domestic water was not a non-natural user

Transco

55

Damage must be foreseeable

Cambridge Water Co

56

Claimant must have proprietary interest

suggested in Read v Lyons; in light of Cambridge Water Co it appears Rylands is a branch of private nuisance
Following Hunter v Canary Wharf, proprietary interest is necessary

57

Personal injury not recoverable in public nuisance

Transco; Hunter v Canary Wharf

58

Defence of common benefit

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

59

If escape wholly caused by claimant's actions, defendant will not be liable

Dunn v Birmingham Canal

60

Defendant will escape liability if situation arose through the unforeseeable act of a stranger over whom he had no control. Only if defendant was not negligent

Perry v Kendrick's Transport

61

Act of God defence restricted to exception situations

Nichols v Marsland