private nuisance (20 mark) answer structure Flashcards
(11 cards)
what is the definition of private nuisance
‘an unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land coming from neighbours’.
who can be claimants?
Can be anyone who has use of legal interest in the land that has interfered with. This can include an owner, tenant or occupier.
what is the case for this?
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Who are the defendants?
Must be an occupier of the land. This could include having possession and control over it like a landlord or being an owner
what is the case for this?
Tetly v Chitty
what are the 3 key elements in proving the existence of nuisance?
- An unlawful use of land
- Leading to an indirect interference
- With the claimants use or enjoyment of land
under the first element (unlawful use of land) is interference sufficient?
An interference alone is not sufficient, the interference should be unreasonable.
what determines the interference to be unreasonable?
Locality: what is nuisance in central london may not be nuisance in leyton (Sturges v Bridgeman)
Duration of the nuisance: whether the nuisance is continuous or short lived (Crown River Cruises v Kimbolten)
Seriousness of the interference: The more serious the interference, more likely it’s going to be unreasonable.
Sensitivity of the claimant: If claimant is particularly sensitive then an action may not be nuisance (Network Rail v Mollis).
Malice can also play an important part (Christie v Davey)
Social benefit: If it is considered that D is providing benefit to the community the courts may consider the interference reasonable (Adams v Ursell)
Effect on the C’s human rights (Hatton v UK)
under the second element, what does indirect interference mean?
This means that the D is not directly interfering with the land themselves.
what are some examples of indirect interference?
fumes (Bliss v Hall)
smell from neighbours (Adams v Ursell)
noisy neighbours (Coventry v Lawrence)
gunfire shots (Hollywood Farm v Emmett)
vibrations from industrial machinery (Sturges v Bridgman)
running a brothel in a residential area (Lous v Florine place)
natural accidents (Leakey v National Trust)
under the third element, what must happen in order for there to be a nuisance?
The interference should have an impact on C’s enjoyment of land. There will be no nuisance if the interference is with a purely recreational use of land (Hunter v Canary Wharf).
