private nuisance Flashcards
(27 cards)
definition of private nuisance
indirect, substantial and unlawful interference with a persons ordinary use of the land
elements of private nuisance (6)
- C must be able to sue
- Can D be sued
- indirect interference
- interference with C’s common and ordinary use of the land
- interference must be substantial
- interference must be unlawful
who can sue and case
C must have legal rights in the land being affected (tenants and owners)
Hunter V Canary Wharf
who can be sued and case
usually the creator of the nuisance, under the right circumstances the owner or occupier of the land can be sued instead
Tetley V Chitty
what can indirect interference involve
physical damage or non- physical discomfort
indirect physical damage case
Sedleigh denfield V O’ Callaghan
indirect non- physical discomfort case
Christie V Davey
what is continuing interference and case
a natural hazard develops and D fails to take precautions to stop it interfering with other land
Leakey V National Trust
Leakey V National Trust lp
despite not having caused the landslide the failure to prevent it and do anything was enough for an interference
sensitivity of C’s use lp and case
claim will fail if they only suffered due to some abnormal sensitivity or their lands use of it
Network Rail Infrastructure LTD V Morris
recreational activities or ‘things of delight’ lp and cases (2)
C cant sue if the thing being affected is merely a fun thing to do on the land rather than the lands fundamental use
AG V Doughty
Hunter V Canary Wharf
substantial interference case
Halsey V Esso petroleum
substantial interference physical damage rule
always considered to be substantial interference
substantial interference non- physical discomfort rule
only considered substantial if it makes it physically unpleasant to be on the land
interference must be unlawful case
Fearn V Tate gallery
Fearn V Tate gallery lp’s (3)
- must be some give and take between neighbours
- D’s use of the land must go beyond what is common and ordinary to be unlawful
- was a nuisance, was unlawful, went beyond common and ordinary use of the land
deciding factors as to whether it’s a common and ordinary use of land (3)
- locality
- duration
- malice
locality and case
considering the environment of the local area (whether its commercial or residential)
Sturges V Bridgman
duration and cases (2)
considering when the interference happened and how long it lasts
Halsey v Esso petroleum
Crown river cruises LTD V Kimbolton fireworks LTD
Crown river cruises LTD V Kimbolton fireworks LTD lp
even a temporary interference can go beyond ordinary if the interference is severe
malice and case
considering if D was deliberately acting malicious or not
Christie V Davey
defences
- prescription
- planning permission
prescription and case
where D had carried out the nuisance for 20 plus years with no complaints from C , prescribed the right to continue the activity.
Sturges V Bridgman
Sturges V Bridgman lp
can only be prescribed right to continue if act has been a nuisance to the same claimant for 20 plus years without complaint
