Private nuisance Flashcards
(10 cards)
Private nuisance
Private nuisance – any unlawful indirect interference with a person’s use of enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land
Overlaps with other Torts-The tort of nuisance overlaps with negligence, trespass to land and Rylands v Fletcher.
There has to be an indirect interference with Claimant’s use or enjoyment of the land.
3 types of private nuisance
In Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997), Lord Lloyd said there were 3 types of private nuisance
Encroachment e.g. tree roots, branches of trees
Physical Injury to a neighbour’s land
Interference with a neighbour’s enjoyment of land
Who can sue in private nuisance
In order to bring an action, the claimant must have a legal interest in the land. This means an owner or tenant.
A licensee, a lodger, or a member of the owner’s family, has no interest in land and cannot bring an action
Who is liable? 1.Creator of the nuisance, 2. occupier,3. landowner
The tort must be indirect
The tort must be Indirect
Direct=trespass. Indirect= Nuisance.
indirect interference cases
Indirect Interference
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm V Emmett (1936)-Noise from a shotgun disrupted the breeding of foxes
Sturges V Bridgman (1879)-Noise and vibrations from the defendant’s sweet factory disrupted a Dr’s Consulting room
Miller V Jackson (1977)-Continuous Interference from cricket balls flying into a neighbour’s garden
Bliss V Hall (1838) - Tallow fumes from a candle makers drifted over the claimant’s land
The interference must be unlawful
The interference Must be unlawful
The basic question for the court is “whether the defendant’s activity is foreseeably Likely to cause a nuisance
It is a balancing act; the court must decide between One part’s right to use their land and the other’s enjoyment. The test is
Does the nuisance ‘interfere with ordinary Existence
factors when balancing the interests of the parties
The court will consider the following factors when balancing the interests of the parties:
Locality
Duration
Degree of interference
Sensitivity of the claimant
Reasons for the defendant’s activity
Motive (malice)
Defences to private nuisance
Defences to Private Nuisance
We need to consider
Statutory authority- a public body is allowed to cause a nuisance if it is acting in accordance with legislation. A defendant may also escape liability in nuisance-if parliament created an alternative remedy for the claimant
Prescription- The defendant has been carrying out the activities for the last 20 years-therefore over time they have become legal. Note: The activity must have been a nuisance for 20 years+
Planning permission- Granted by LA’s after careful investigations into the rights and expectations of those in the community. Offers some protection to Ds - often not complete protection though.NT: there must be a change in the character of the neighbourhood (Gillingham)
Note - the following are NOT defences, even though they are often thought to be:
Coming to the nuisance
Public benefit (social utility)
Cases for the defences of private nuisance
Marcic v Thames- The C’s property was regularly flooded with sewage as the drains provided by Thames water were inadequate, due to population increase, but not a priority for an upgrade. The drains were properly maintained. Claim should have been under water legislation (CASE FOR THE DEFENCE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY)
Sturges v Bridgman- Noise and vibrations from the defendant’s sweet factory disrupted a Dr’s Consulting room
Allen v Gulf Oil- The D was given permission to build oil refinery by statute, but not operate it. Residents complained about smell and noise. Statute covered the operation (CASE FOR THE DEFENCE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY)
Gillingham BC V Medway- A former naval dockyard now run as a commercial port. HGVs using residential roads at night, disturbing local population. You must judge the area as it is now, after the planning permission has been granted. (CASE FOR THE DEFENCE OF PLANNING PERMISSION)
Wheeler V Saunders- smell from pigs-as the planning permission did not alter the character of the neighbourhood, this could be a nuisance (CASE FOR THE DEFENCE OF PLANNING PERMISSION)
Watson v Croft Promo sport- Planning permission for a racetrack changed the character of the area so no nuisance(CASE FOR THE DEFENCE OF PLANNING PERMISSION)
Hatton V Uk –The claimant complained that night flights into and out of Heathrow meant that they all suffered sleep deprivation and consequential health problems (CASE FOR THE DEFENCE OF PRESCRIPTION)
remedies of private nuisance
Remedies
3 Possible remedies
Injunction (full or partial)- Kennaway v Thompson (1980)
Damages- Miller v Jackson (1977)
Abatement
