PRIVATE NUISANCE Flashcards
ELEMENTS OF PRIVATE NUISANCE
- INDIRECT INTERFERENCE
- UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE
- MATERIAL DAMAGE
DEFINITION OF PRIVATE NUISANCE (W CASE)
ANY CONTINUOUS ACTIVITY OR STATE OF AFFAIRS CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL AND UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE WITH A Persons land or enjoyment of it
(BAMFORD V TURNLEY)
NOISE
(CHRISTIE V DAVEY)
WATER
(SEDLEIGH-DENFIELD V O’CALLAGHAN)
UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE
one that goes beyond acceptable behaviour
(SOUTHWARK LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL V MILLS)
Factors for courts to consider unreasonable interference LOCALITY…
…the character of locality can be changed when planning permission is granted
(STURDGES V BRIDGMAN)
(GILLINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL V MEDWAY)
Factors…
DURATION
THE LONGER THE INTERFERENCE CONTINUES THE MORE ITS LIKE TO BE A NUISANCE…
…BUT SHORT INTERFERENCE COULD STILL CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM
(BOLTON V STONE)
(CROWN RIVER CRUISES V KIMBOLTON FIREWORK)
Factors…
SENSITIVITY
the court does not take into account abnormal sensitivity
(ROBINSON V KILVERT)
claimant can claim for the right to ordinary enjoyment and claim for extra claims caused by unusual sensitivity
(MCKINNON INDUSTRIES V WALKER)
Factors…
MALICE means bad motive
(CHRISTIE V DAVEY)
(HOLLYWOOD SILVER FOX FARM V EMMETT)
DAMAGE … damage must be more than trivial
personal injury is not usually recoverable but can be claimed under negligence.
PHYSICAL DAMAGE ()
PERSONAL DISCOMFORT AND ENCROACHMENT
(ST HELENS SMELTING CO V TIPPING)
(LEMMON V WEBB)
WHO CAN SUE IN PRIVATE NUISANCE??
TRADITIONAL VIEW CLAIMANT HAD TO HAVE A PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE LAND AFFECTED BY THE PRIVATE NUISANCE
THE TRADITIONAL VIEW CHANGED IN…
(KHORANSANDJAN V BUSH)
WHO CAN SUE WAS CHANGED BACK TO ITS TRADITIONAL VIEW IN…
…and PRINCIPLE WAS CONFIRMED IN…
(MCKENNA V BRITISH ALUMINIUM)
(HUNTER V CANARY WHARF)
A PERSON WHO AUTHORISES THE NUISANCE CAN BE SUED SUCCESSFULLY
(TETLEY V CHITTY)
A PERSON WHO ADOPTS THE NUISANCE CAN BE SUED SUCCESSFULLY
(SEDLEIGH-DENFIELD V O’CALLAGHAN)
