Private Nuisance Flashcards
(8 cards)
Introduce
Private Nuisance
Fearn V Tate Gallery
Apart of PN
Fearn v Tate Gallery - A use of land which wrongfully interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of another land.
Describe
The C + D
Hunter v Canary Wharf, Tetley v Chitty, Sedleigh Denfield
Apart of PN
The claimant
Anyone who believes their use and enjoyment of the land has been interfered with
Hunter v Canary Wharf - The C must have some interest in the land this can’t stretch to family
The Defendant
The person who is the occupier or is causing the nuisance
Tetley V Chitty - D can be owner of land, as long as they allowed it to happen Sedleigh Denfield - An occupier who knows about a nuisance but fails to stop it, even if they didn’t cause it, can be a D.
Describe
The Indirect Interference + Interferes with C’s use and enjoyment of land.
Fearn v Tate Gallery, Laws v Florinplace Ltd
Apart of PN
Indirect Interference
Fearn v Tate Gallery - D’s action and interference must be substantial. This is judged against the ordinary person. There will be no liability if there is low interference as there is a common and ordinary use of the land.
Smells, Substantial amount of property overlooked, General noise, dust, smoke, vocations
Interfere with use and enjoyment
Private nuisance doesn’t include physical harm or damage to C’s land, it must interfere with C’s use and enjoyment .
Laws v Florinplace Ltd - Courts will protect against feelings of emotional distress.
Describe
Unreasonable Use of Land
Fearn and Others v Tate Gallery, De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros
Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris, Hollywood Silver Fox Farm LTD v Emmett, Apart of PN
Locality
Courts consider if defendant was unreasonable based on the area.
Fearn and Others v Tate Gallery - if there is not a common or ordinary use of land then it will be unreasonable, this is judged by the character of locality and already established activities
Duration
It will be unreasonable if happens continuously and at unacceptable hours of the day.
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros - defendants interference could be temporary but it can still be classed as a continuous nuisance.
Sensitivity of claimant
Defendants interference is not unreasonable if C uses their land for an unusual or sensitive purpose.
Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris - When a claimants use of land is sensitive the defendants interference is not foreseeable.
Malice
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm LTD v Emmett - it will be unreasonable if D acted out of malice, hostility or spite.
Describe
Defences
Coventry v Lawrence, Gillingham BC v Medway Doc Co
Apart of PN
Prescription
Full Defence
Coventry v Lawrence - Activity must have taken place for at least 20 years after the nuisance has began. D can use this defence if this is the case.
Statutory Authority
Full defence if specific statue legitimises what they are doing on their land.
Planning Permission
Full Defence
Gillingham BC v Medway Doc Co - Defence can be used if the permission, changes the character of the neighbourhood, making the nuisance a common and ordinary use of the land.
Describe
Stuff that can’t be defences in Private Nuisance.
Fearn v Tate Gallery
Apart of PN
Not defence but can affect remedy.
Fearn v Tate Gallery - Coming to the nuisance and public benefit are not a defence, but can be considered when deciding the appropriate remedies.
Public Benefit = Activity Centres, Sport centres, factories or businesses.
Describe
Remedies
Apart of PN
Injunction
Orders D to stop or take further action to stop nuisance.
Damages
Not suitable remedy, D allowed to continue but C gets compensation.
Apply to an Exam Question
Flip
Apart of PN
The C is… (who owns or rents land?)
The D is… (What type are they?)
II
Here the indirect interference is….
This interferes with the C’s use and enjoyment of their land because…
UUOL (Only apply what’s relevant)
Locality
Residential, part residential or commercial? Is this nuisance reasonable for this type of area? Why?
Duration
How long does the nuisance last for? (Is it recurring or at an unreasonable time?) Would this be unreasonable?
Sensitivity of claimant - what aspects makes the claimant use of land sensitive? Will this affect the claim?
Malice
Is D acting out of malice? Why?
Defences
Prescription - Has the activity happened for 20 years has the claimant or someone else complained about this before ?
Coming to the nuisance - why has claimant come to the nuisance? What can’t this justify?
Statutory authority - is there a statute that covers this activity?
Planning permission - what permission does the defendant have? Will this change the use and locality of the area?
Public benefit - defendant may argue that the action is in the public benefit because… What can this justify?
**
Conclusion
**
If claim successful what would be the most appropriate remedy and
why?
