Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Tort - Exam cards > Nuisance > Flashcards

Nuisance Flashcards

(69 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Structure of each type of nuisance

A

Standing
Elements
Defences
Remedies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Economic loss

A

Spartan Steel;

  • Can claim for consequential economic loss (loss of profit after damage)
  • Cannot claim for pure economic loss (loss of profit where there is no damage)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Hunter v Canary Wharf

A
  • Must have an interest in land to claim private nuisance

- Indirect interference must start on defendants land for public nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Dobson v Thames

A

If no legal interest in land (e.g. child, then could use art 8 as a recourse)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Thomas v NUM

A
  • Public nuisance from blocking of highway

- Creator of nuisance can be sued

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Leaky v NT

A
  • Occupier of land can be sued
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Matania v Provincial bank

A

Independent contractors can be sued

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Tetley v Chitty

A

Landlord can be sued

C/F - Southwark v Mills - Cannot sue landlord if they were unaware of potential nuisance. (Noisy neighbours)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Sandleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

A
  • Trespasser can be sued
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Sturges v Bridgman

A
  • Moving to nuisance is a potential defence, but will not work
  • Noise is indirect interference
  • Character of neighbourhood is a factor in whether the interference is unreasonable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

St Helens Smelting

A
  • Fumes are indirect interference
  • Where there is actual damage there is a low standard for a successful claim in nuisance
  • Where there is physical damage to the property the character of the neighbourhood is no longer a relevant factor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What damage can be claimed in private nuisance?

A

Property - Lemmon v Webb

SPD - St Helens Smelting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Bamford v Turnely

A

Everyone has to tolerate a certain ammount of interference. Question of ‘give and take’. Therefore only a nuisance if unreasonable use of land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Kennaway v Thompson

A
  • Duration and timing of the nuisance is a factor in reasonableness
  • Where a nusiance has a public benefit a partial injunction may be granted (Speed boats on lake Windermere)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Cambridge Water v Eastern Leather

A

Damage must be reasonably foreseeable in Rylands and private

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Laws v Florinplace

A

Sex shop. People can be a nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Robinson v Klivert

A

Must come up to objective level of sensitivity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

McKinnon v Walker

A

If reasonable man would be affected, but claimant is affected more than this, then can claim for full extent of damage (Orchids v other flowers)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Network Rail v Morris

A

Interference with recording equipment not judged to be abnormally sensitive, most people have some electrical equipment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Nor Video v Ontario

A

Can claim for a blocked TV signal in Canada

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Bolton v Stone

A

6 cricket balls in 30 years was insufficent frequency for a nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Castle v Golf Club

A

Cars frequently hit by golf balls…frequent enough for nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Spicer v Smee

A

One off incident sufficient if it is indicative of long running issue (Wiring)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Crown Cruises v Fireworks

A

Firework case. One off, but property damage inevitable for sustained nuisance, therefore nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet
If nuisance performed with malice then this will be unreasonable, despite being otherwise reasaonble
26
Andrae v Selfridge
Lack of care will mean tort is unreasonable
27
Farrer v Nelson
Too many pheasants. Excessive, therefore unreasonable
28
Holbeck Hotel v Scarborough
Where nuisance is naturally occuring it is more likely to be reasoanble
29
Gillingham v Medway
The character of a neighbourhood can change
30
Perry v Kendrick
Act of a stranger is a full defence
31
Defences to private nuisance
- Prescription - Contributory negligence - Volenti - Act of a stranger
32
Remedies for private nuisance
Damages, damages in lieu, injunction, partial injunction
33
Dennis v MOD
Damages in lieu
34
Bellew v irish Cement
Public benefit can be used as a defence to private nuisance, but it will rarely work. Only possible effect is that it may mean a partial injunction is granted or claimant may recieve damages in lieu of injunction
35
Wheeler v JJ Saunders
Planning permission is not consent, so is not a defence to nuisance
36
3 elements of private nuisance
- Damage - Indirect interference - Unlawful use of land
37
Elements of a public nuisance
- Standing - Damage - Class of people
38
AG v PYA Quarries
Acts or omissions of the defendant that materially affect the reasoanble comfort and conveneice of life of a class of people
39
AG v Hastings
A class in no specific number. A small number of houses was insufficient
40
R v Rimmington
Cannot be a large number of separate issues, must be affected by the same factor
41
Goldstein
Closure of postal sorting office was a class
42
Tate and Lyle v GLC
Individual can bring a public nuisance claim if they have suffered harm above that of others. Had to dredge river due to public nuisance
43
Campbell v Paddington Corp
- Stand erected in front of claimants house. He had damage above that of others - Public nuisance in blokcing the highway
44
Wandsworth v Network Rail
Pigeons pooing under bridge was public nuisance which was brought by local council
45
Damage under public nuisance
- Property damage - PI - Economic Loss- Rose v Miles
46
Pop Festival
Public nuisance due to noise. One off event but had long duration
47
Lions v Gulliver
Queue blocking acces to tea shop, individual claim
48
Rylands v Fletcher
- Established the sub-species of private tort -> Rylands v Fletcher - Tort created by escape of large ammount of water
49
Elements of a Rylands v Fletcher tort
- Brings onto land - Mischief - Escape - Non-natural use
50
Giles v Walker
- Must bring onto land cannot be naturally occuring
51
Transco
- Standing the same as private nuisance | - Only property damage can be claimed under rylands
52
Fish Guano
Can sue anyone who creates the nuisance
53
Rainham v Belvedere
Anything likely to do mischief e.g. acid
54
Read v Lyons
- Explosives are likely to do mischief | - Substance must escape land
55
Rickards v Lothian
- Sink resulting in flood was natural use of land so no rylands tort
56
Musgrove v Pandelis
Natural use of lands can change
57
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
Defence of mutual benefit
58
Dunn v Birmingham Canal
Default of claimant. Dug under canal. No claim
59
Defences under Rylands
- COnsent - Mutual benefit - Act of claiamnt - Act of stranger - Contrib neg - ACt of god
60
R v Shorrock
Noise can be nuisance in public nuisance
61
What is the acronym for all the types of unlawful interference?
MENNTAL
62
Khorasabdijan v Bush
Requirement to have an interest not required in this case. No specific reasoning given though case involved deliberate nuisance through phone calls. Discussion point.
63
McKenna v British Aluminium
Children made claim for SPD. No interest in land, but claim allowed under art 8 of human rights despite lack of interest in land.
64
Malone v Laskey
Must have interest in land. Confirmed in hunter v canary wharf.
65
British celanese v hunt
Continual state of affairs will make it unreasonable.
66
Allen v gulf oil
Defence of statutory authority
67
Ponying v noakes
Default of claimant
68
British celanese v hunt
Private nuisance must occur more than just once
69
Crown river cruises v kimbolton
One off went was a private nuisance due to definite SPD and propert damage that would occur from sustained fireworks

Tort - Exam cards (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions