nuisance Flashcards
what is private nuisance
unlawful, indirect interference with a person’s use and enjoyment of land (or rights over land )
who can sue in private nuisance
a claimant need proprietary interest in the land in order to sue; the owner or the tenant, it cannot be other members of the family e.g. a child
who can be sued?
it doesn’t need to be someone who has an interest in land and can be a person causing or allowing the nuisance.
what was held in tetley v chitty
local authority who has allowed go-karting on the land was held liable
what was said in sedleigh denfield v o’callaghan about who can be sued
even if the occupier is not responsible for the nuisance they may have ‘adopted’ the nuisance for failing to deal with the problem
what was said in anthony v coal authority about who can be sued
D can also be liable where the nuisance resulted from natural cause of which he/she is aware but fails to deal with
explain the case of anthony v coal authority
F: D took over a former colliery and sold it as common land. A first started causing smoke and fumes which interfered with people in the area
H: D was liable because it was aware of the problem while they were in control and failed to deal with the problem
give some examples of common nuisance
noise, dust, vibrations, fire and smells
explain the case of hunter v canary wharf
F: C’s were living in the area near the canary wharf building and had lost their TV reception as a result of the building being built
H: HL ‘a thing of delight’ it not actionable in nuisance
explain the case of thompson-schwab v costaki
F: D’s were running a brothel in a residential area of London
H: the sight of prostitutes and their clients entering and leaving neighbouring premises were held to amount to an actionable nuisance as the activity was considered offensive in itself. there was no need to demonstrate that the activities were noisy.
what does unlawful mean in nuisance
the court accepts that D’s use of the land is unreasonable in the way it affects the claimant. D doesn’t have to be at fault in anyway. actual physical damage is prima facie actionable.
what are the 5 issues looked at by court when deciding if something is reasonable
sensitivity, locality, duration, malice and social benefit
what is the sensitivity rule
D isn’t responsible for damage which occurs solely because C or C’s situation is abnormally sensitive.
explain the case of Robinson v kilvert
F: C occupied the ground floor of D’s premises to store brown paper. D stored boxes in the basement that required a hot, dry atmosphere. Dried C’s paper above out
H: court found paper was exceptionally delicate and hot air would not usually cause damage to paper.
explain the case of network rail v morris
F: a railway network had installed a new signalling systems and the owner of a nearby recording studio complained of electro-magnetic interference which caused his to lose business
H: CA accepted that rail track signalling system did affect the music of C’s guitars despite them being ‘abnormally sensitive’ but dismissed the appeal due ti the interference being unforeseeable
explain the case of McKinnon industries v Walker
F:C’s orchid were damaged and enjoyment of land affected by fumes and sulphur dioxide from D’s factory
H: privy council stated that as the right to the ordinary enjoyment has been infringed the C could also claim protection for his more unusual activity.
explain the locality rule
where the interference takes place will have an important bearing whether it is reasonable or not
explain the case of st helens smelting co v tipping
F: c’s estate was situated in an industrial area with fumes from a copper works damaging his tress and crops
H: HoL distinguished nuisances damage to property- shouldn’t be expected to put up with this. personal discomfort- put up with levels common to the area.
explain the case of sturges v bridgeman
F: C was a doctor who sued a confectioner for the noise from his industrial equipment
H: took into account that local area was mostly doctor’s consulting rooms and explained that what would be a nuisance in a quiet residential area would not necessarily be so in a busy industrial one
explain the duration rule
length and time of day. the longer the inconvenience goes on, the more likely it is to be actionable similarly, when the inconvenience is actually occuring will be important. noise at night is more unreasonable than noise during the day for instance.
explain the case of Crown river cruises v kimbolton fireworks
F: a 20 minute firework display could only amount to a nuisance if physical damage is caused
H: one-offs only liable if there is damage
explain the malice rule
motive is usually irrelevant in tort as something which is lawful cannot be made unlawful simply because of the motive of the one who is causing the damge
explain the case of christie v davey
F: C was a music teacher who held musical parties at his house. D his next door neighbour deliberatley tried to disturb lessons and parties with banging on the wall and blowing whistles
H: malicious motive made D’s conduct unreasonable
explain the case of hollywood silver fox farm v emmett
F: C bred foxes on his land. D was a neighbour who after a disagreement with C told his son to shoot his gun in the air while standing close to C’s land in order to frighten their vixens so they would not breed
H: D entitled to shoot but had a malicious motive