Nuisance (rev notes) Flashcards
(32 cards)
Private nuisance (def)
= an act or omission, generally connected w/ use of land, which causes damage to another person by unreasonably interfering w/ their enjoyment of their own land
Private nuisance - 3 key elements
- interference w/ use or enjoyment of land
- which is unreasonable (relevant factors = continuity / duration / time of day / location…)
- and causes some damage to the land (physical or loss of amenity)
Who can sue in pv nuisance ?
HL in Hunter v Canary Wharf (1996): Only someone w/ a possessory or proprietary interest in land can sue (bcs nuisance = tort to land)
Authority = HL i
Who can be sued in pv nuisance ?
(1) the creator of the nuisance
(2) the occupier of the land which is the source of the nuisance = Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan (1939)
(3) in some cases, landlord / O of land source of the nuisance (see later card for cases)
Can landlord be sued in pv nuisance ?
Contrast :
· Tetley v Chitty (1986) : land let for purpose of go-cart racing, landlord lb for the noise bcs natural csq of the letting
· Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire County Council (1999) : council lb for anti-social activity of travelers they had allowed to occupy a site and not evicted
· ≠ Hussain v Lancaster City Council (1999): claim against landlord for racist activities of tenant failed
6 elements that can be relevant in pv nuisance
- Location
- Planning permission
- C’s sensitivity
- Utility of D’s conduct
- D’s motive
- Duties arising from acts of nature
Location (in pv N)
- Sturges v Bridgman (1879) : “what would be a nuisance in Belgravia would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey” (fashionable residential district v s smelly leather industry area)
- St Helen’s Smelting Co : location taken into acc when damage = loss of amenity but not so much where there is material damage to property
Planning permission (in pv N)
might ‘change the nature of the locality’
- yes in Gillingham BC v Medway Dock Co (1993), but no in Wheeler v Saunders (1996)
- Sc in Coventry v Lawrence (2014): disapproved of Gillingham
-> Lord Neuberger confirmed that planning permission cannot by itself legalise a nuisance, although it is a relevant factor in the overall picture
C’s sensitivity (in pv N)
Not supposed to be taken into account
- Eg. Robinson v Kilvert (1889): P’s storage of delicate paper = special sensitivity
- Contrast w/ McKinnon industries v Walker (1953): damage done to orchids still actionable bcs ordinary plants would’ve been affected by D’s activities
Utility of D’s conduct (in pv N)
- usefulness doesn’t prevent D’s activities from being a nuisance (eg Adams v Ursell (1913): popular local fish & chips shop considered a nuisance bcs smell ; Bellew v Cement Co (1948): D owned only cement factory in Ireland = v useful and needed but still a nuisance)
- BUT can affect the remedy : damages rather than injunction to stop (eg Miller v Jackson)
D’s motive (in pv nuisance)
Malice / deliberate intent to harm can make smth otherwise lawful into a nuisance: Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)
Positive duties arising from acts of nature (pv nuisance)
D may be lb for nuisance arising from natural causes on his land if fails to do smth about it -> Goldman v Hargrave (1967), Leakey v National Trust
Positive duties arising from acts of nature (pv nuisance) - relevance of knowledge of pb
Contrast :
· Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough Borough Council (2000) : C’s hotel destroyed bcs of landslide, D aware of general danger of landslips but the one which occurred could only have been predictable following an extensive geological survey - court held that not reasonable to expect D to undertake such a survey (expensive) so not lb for the damage bcs unforeseeable
· Delaware Mansions v Westminster City Council (2001): D lb for damage by encroaching tree roots bcs ‘knew or ought to have known’ they were a pb
‘coming to the nuisance is not a defence’ (pv nuisance)
= not open to D to say that C can’t complain bcs should’ve been aware / nuisance was there before C (eg Miller v Jackson, Sturges v Brightman)
Defences to pv nuisance (2)
· Prescription = if D’s activity has been causing nuisance for 20y or more, then he has acquired a legal right which provides him w/ a defence to a claim in pv nuisance - however court apply this df restrictively, see Sturges v Bridgeman (1879)
· Statutory authority : D = pbc body acting under statutory powers, df if nuisance = unavoidable outcome of the authorised activity -> Allen v Gulf Oil (1981)
/!\ ≠ planning permission
Remedies in pv nuisance
- generally an injunction bcs nuisance = continuing pb (eg De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spucer Brothers)
- Alternatively, damages in lieu of an injunction, eg Miller v Jackson (no longer restricted following Coventry v Lawrence)
-
abatement (only in rare
cases) = C taking appropriate steps to put an end to it eg cut encroaching roots (eg Delaware Mansions v Westminster CC)
Rylands v Fletcher liability (Blackburn J quote)
“A person who for his own purposes bring on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” (Rylands v. Fletcher (1866) per Blackburn J)
Rylands v Fletcher (elements of liability) (5)
(a) In the course of non-natural use of the land
(b) D brings onto his land / collects and keeps there
(c) Something which is likely to do mischief if it escapes
(d) It does escape
(e) And causes damage of a foreseeable kind
RFV - (a) non natural use
def in Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) : non natural use must involve “an exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing in extraordinary or unusual circumstances”
RVF - (b) accumulation / collection
Must be artificial, not smth naturally present (eg Giles v Water (1890) : failure to cut thistles growing naturally on D’s land not an accumulation)
RVF - (c) things likely to do mischief if they escape
Don’t have to be intrinsically dangerous (RVF itself abt water) but mustn’t be completely harmless either, or at least in sufficient quantity to be capable of causing harm
RVF - (d) Escape
thing must get off D’s land and on to P’s (eg RVF: water getting into C’s mines - contrast Read v Lyons (1947) : explosion in munition factory not an escape bcs stayed within D’s factory)
/!\ if intentional (eg spraying tear gas as in Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire (1985)) claim in trespass rather than RVF
RVF - (e) Damage of a foreseeable type
- same as pv nuisance : damage to land
- PI not recoverable (Cambridge water, transco)
- additional requirement: damage must be of a foreseeable type (Cambridge Water)
=> Q = given that there was an escape (for which there is st lb), would this damage have been reasonably foreseeable ?
RVF - Defences (4)
· Consent of C / common benefit : Operates same as volenti
- eg Carstairs v Taylor (1871) : rainwater collected and stored on the roof of a block of flats ; no RVF lb when a rat gnawed through container and caused flooding bcs collection for the benefit of all the inhabitants
· Act of a stranger : D not lb if escape caused by act of unknown 3P over which D had no control
- eg Perry v Kendrick : child trespasser lighted a match into petrol tank and caused explosion
· Act of God: only exceptional events eg earthquake - v heavy rainstorm was enough in Nichols v Marsland (1896) but author suggests might not be accepted today
· Statutory authority : same as nuisance, D has a df where activity in question takes place in exercise of a statutory duty (and D not negligent) - Dunne v North Western Gas Board (1964)
