PN 3

Question 1

Apart from physical interference and interferences with comfort and convenience, what else does PN encompass

Answer 1

measured duty of care cases

Question 2

case for measured duty of care

Answer 2

Goldman v Hargrave (Privy Council)

Question 3

What was held in Goldman v Hargrave

Answer 3

• occupiers to remove or reduce hazards to their neighbours’ (similar to neighbour principle)
• D needs to take adequate steps to alleviate the risks

Question 4

what standard is the D held to as held in Goldman

Answer 4

a fault-based standard (Lord Wilberforce)

-reasonable person test applies

Question 5

when is a measured duty of care owed

Answer 5

vis-à-vis dangers arising from operations of nature affecting something on D’s land.

Question 6

Leakey v National Trust outcome

Answer 6

occupiers are under a duty to do that which is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent or minimise a known risk to a neighbour’s property (or to the neighbour).

-cases of this sort can be pleaded in PN or negligence

Question 7

Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd v Scarborough Borough Council

Answer 7

• D owed C a duty of care
• The duty arises when the defect is known and the hazard or danger to the claimant’s land is reasonably foreseeable’.
• relevance of fairness, justice, and reasonableness’ (Caparo test)

Question 8

what did the judge argue about the Leakey case in Holbeck

Answer 8

that the duty in Leakey is ‘measured

Question 9

what distinction was made in Holbeck

Answer 9

the distinction between patent and latent defects.

Question 10

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell

outcome

Answer 10

Mr Recorder Grubb held that Network Rail had breached a duty it owed to the claimants (and had caused continuing nuisance and damage).

Question 11

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell

what case was used to show that the knotweed was a ‘natural hazard’

Answer 11

Goldman v Hargrave and Leakey v National Trust.- amenity value of the land

Question 12

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell

quote: the purpose of nuisance is to …

Answer 12

‘The purpose of … nuisance is … to protect the owner of the land (or a person entitled to exclusive possession) in their use and enjoyment of the land’ [48].

Question 13

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell

quote: ‘the purpose of nuisance is NOT to protect …

Answer 13

‘the value of the property as an investment or financial asset’ [48].

Question 14

3 types of interference

Answer 14

• physical interference (strict approach)
• interference with comfort and convenience (contextualised balancing)
• measured duty of care (fault-based standard)

Question 15

remoteness

what is the test

Answer 15

is the harm of a reasonably foreseeable type?

Question 16

remoteness

2 cases

Answer 16

Overseas Tankship

Cambridge Waster Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc

Question 17

remoteness

which case brought an end the controversy which had been a feature of PN law

Answer 17

-Cambridge Water Co

Question 18

remoteness

what was the controversy which ended in Cambridge Water Co

Answer 18

The controversy concerned the relevant remoteness rule, it wasn’t clear what it was. (Re polimis)

Question 19

remoteness

what is the new test for remoteness

Answer 19

reasonable foreseeability

Question 20

which principle is not a feature of PN - quote

Answer 20

egg shell skull principle-

-‘The defendant is not responsible for damage that flows from the [claimant’s] extra vulnerability’ (Howarth)

Question 21

who can sue (2)

Answer 21

• claimant must have a right in or over the affected land: Hunter v Canary Wharf
• Proprietary or possessory interests

Question 22

who can sue?

which ECHR article must we keep in mind

Answer 22

Article 8 ECHR- qualified right to privacy

Question 23

who can be sued (3)

Answer 23

• The person who creates the nuisance.
• The occupier of the land – typically the defendant in private nuisance.
• The occupier’s landlord.

Question 24

when can landlords be sued (3)

Answer 24

(a) authorise the nuisance;
(b) have an obligation to repair,
(c) the nuisance existed prior to the letting.

Question 25

case for landlords being sued (2)

Answer 25

• Coventry v Lawrence (Supreme Court)

- Smith v Scott

Question 26

why was landlord not held liable in Smith v Scott

Answer 26

nuisance caused by tenants (anti-social/’problem’ family). Landlord (local authority) not held liable. This was because of covenant (not to create a nuisance).

Question 27

outcome in Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 27

landlords will be held liable for a private nuisance created by their tenants where they have authorised the interference or directly participated in it.