Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

tort > PN- comfort and convenience > Flashcards

PN- comfort and convenience Flashcards

1
Q

Bramwell v Turnley quote

A

‘a rule of give and take, live and let live’. (Reciprocity)

-cannot exceed reasonable limits- that when it would be unreasonable

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

what did Peter Cane describe the exercise of finding whether there has been an interference with comfort and convenience as

A

a fairness-based conception of justice

-fair accommodation of competing land uses

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

case that held that cases are assessed objectively

A

Walter v Selfe

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

what was held in Walter v Selfe

A

alleged interferences with amenity are assessed by reference to ‘plain and simple notions among English people’.

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

what does the principle of De minimise non curate lex mean

A

This principle states that the law does not take into account trivial inconsequential interferences, it wants a substantial unreasonable interference

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

Interference with comfort and convenience and locality

what case highlights the principle of ‘locality’

A

Sturges v Bridgman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Interference with comfort and convenience and locality

Sturges v Bridgman- what does this case show

A
  • Where you have paid more to live, you will enjoy a higher level of amenity, and where you pay less to live, you enjoy lower levels of amenity
  • This is an example of private nuisance law giving content to property rights
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Interference with comfort and convenience and locality

what function does the law of PN perform

A

a zoning function

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

Interference with comfort and convenience and locality

case for: the nature of the locality may change

A

Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Ltd

-a clash between private rights and public interest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Locality and planning and regulatory approval

case

A

Barr v Biffa Waste Management Services

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Locality and planning and regulatory approval

what was held in Barr v Biffs Waste (the test)

A

would a normal person have found it reasonable to put up with the effects of D’s activities?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Locality and planning and regulatory approval

what analogy was drawn up in Barr v Biffa

A

an analogy between a ‘strategic planning decision’ (Gillingham BC) and the grant of a waste management permit.

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

Locality and planning and regulatory approval

final decision in Barr v Biffa

A

the court concluded that the grant of the permit didn’t have wide ranging publicly significant impact, it was a different type of regulatory intervention. Private interest won out.

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

Balancing

state the 4 factors considered as part of the multifactorial balancing exercise

A
  • abnormal sensitivity
  • level of interference
  • public-benefit
  • mallice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Balancing

what 2 things does the multifactorial balancing exercise include

A
  • strong judicial discretion

- fact sensitive responses to claims

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

Abnormal sensitivity

2 cases

A
  • Robinson v Kilvert

- Heath v Mayor of Brighton

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

Abnormal sensitivity

what does this mean

A

that C’s who abnormally sensitive will not win a claim

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

Abnormal sensitivity and television

2 cases

A
  • Bridlington Relay Ltd v Yorkshire Electricity Board

- Hunter v Canary Wharf

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

level (or intensity) of the interference

3 cases

A
  • Matania v National Provincial Bank Ltd
  • British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd
  • SCM v W.J Whittall
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

level (or intensity) of the interference

outcome in Mantania v national Provincial Bank Ltd

A

a temporary interference may, if substantial, constitute an actionable nuisance

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

level (or intensity) of the interference

outcome in British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd

A

An isolated occurrence can give rise to an actionable private nuisance: only if intense enough (Lawton J)

22
Q

level (or intensity) of the interference

outcome in SCM v W.J Whittall

A

although a single escape may constitute a private nuisance, the nuisance must arise from the condition of D’s land or from activities carried out on the land.

23
Q

public benefit

it is not a …

A

defence

24
Q

public benefit

case

A

Miller v Jackson (cricket case)

25
Q

public benefit

outcome in Miller v Jackson (3)

A
  • Private benefit can be used as a remedy but not a defence
  • Remedies are the route for a just outcome
  • Using remedies to accommodate or strike a fair balance between competing land uses.
26
Q

malice

3 cases

A
  • Christie v Davey
  • Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett
  • Bradford Corporation v Pickles
27
Q

what does malice mean

A

intentional annoyance

28
Q

malice

outcome in Christie v Davey

A
  • D held liable. Permanent injunction imposed.

- Since C had behaved unreasonably, ‘music hours’(Weir (Tort Law)) were imposed

29
Q

remedies are a way of …

A

striking a just balance between the competing land uses

30
Q

malice

outcome in Hollywood Silver Fox

A
  • D held liable (having acted maliciously). He acted unreasonably.
  • we can argue that malicious acts lack social utility – and malice tips the balance towards finding D’s use (of land) unreasonable.
31
Q

malice

outcome in Bradford Corporation

A

D was entitled to stop water- conduct was lawful

32
Q

what is the third type of case that PN encompasses

A

measured of duty of care cases

33
Q

what is measured out of care cases about

A

it looks at how the D behaves

34
Q

Goldman v Hargrave (Privy Council) outcome

A
  • D held liable

- D must take adequate steps to alleviate the risk, to remove or reduce hazards to their neighbours.

35
Q

what standard does the D have to be held to in the measured duty of care cases (Lord Wilberforce)

A

D has to be held to a fault based negligence standard

  • negligence or PN may be brought up in this type of claim
  • RP test re-enters
36
Q

when is a measured duty of care owed

A

when dangers arise from operations of nature affecting something on D’s land

37
Q

Leakey v National Trust outcome

A
  • 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 can be pleaded either in private nuisance or negligence
38
Q

Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd v Scarborough Borough Council outcome

A
  • D owed a duty of care
  • the distinction between patent and latent defects made
  • The duty arises when the defect is known and the hazard or danger to the claimant’s land is reasonably foreseeable- Stuart-Smith LJ
  • relevance of fair, just and reasonable (Caparo)
39
Q

what distinction was made in Holbeck

A

distinction between patent and latent defects

40
Q

Holbeck

what are patent defects

A

reasonably foreseeable- a duty arises if something is reasonably foreseeable

41
Q

Holbeck

what are latent defects

A

not reasonably foreseeable. Duty does not arise here if there is a latent defect

42
Q

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell

what did Etherton MR say the purpose of PN is (2)

A
  • to protect the owner of the land in their use and enjoyment of the land
  • not to protect the value of the property or financial asset
43
Q

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams and Waistell

outcome

A

-damages were awarded for the non-enjoyment of the land, not for the diminution in value of the property

44
Q

remoteness

what is the test

A

is the harm of a reasonably foreseeable type

45
Q

remoteness

2 cases for the remoteness test

A
  • Overseas Tankship

- Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc

46
Q

remoteness

what does Howarth say the D is not liable for type of damage

A

The defendant is not responsible for damage that flows from the [claimant’s] extra vulnerability

47
Q

remoteness

who can sure

A
  • The claimant must have a right in or over the affected land: Hunter v Canary Wharf
  • Proprietary or possessory interests; freehold owners, tenants in occupation, reversioners: Khorasandjian v Bush
48
Q

who can be sued

A
  • person who creates nuisance
  • occupier of land- D in PN
  • Ocuupier’s landlord
  • landlords
49
Q

when may landlords be liable for PN

A

1) where they authorise the nuisance
2) have an obligation to repair
3) the nuisance existed prior to the letting

50
Q

Coventry v Lawrence outcome (landlords)

A

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

51
Q

Smith v Scott outcome (landlords)

A

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

tort (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions