Private Nuisance

Question 1

Definition

Answer 1

An actionable private nuisance occurs where a persons use or enjoyment of their land is unlawfully interfered with by activities carried on by another person on their land

Question 2

Who can sue

Answer 2

Private nuisance protects interests in and the enjoyment of land.

Question 3

Malone v Laskey (1907)

Answer 3

Claimant lived with her husband who was a licensee
Vibrations from engine caused bracket to fall on claimant

Claim failed as she had no interest in the land

Question 4

A02 point- Khorasandjian v Bush (1993)

Answer 4

Daughter living in parents house
Could be granted despite the fact that she had no interest in the land
Telephone calls

Question 5

Hunter and others v Canary Wharf

Hunter and others v London Docklands Corporation (1997)

Answer 5

Two joined appeals
Television reception and damage caused by dust during construction of a road

Not successful

A claim in private nuisance will only lie at the suit of the person who has a right to the land affected

“Exclusive possession” principle

Question 6

Tucker v Newman (1839)

Answer 6

Reversioner is the person the land will return after the expiration of the current occupiers interest

Nuisance will be permanent
House built on adjoining land- overhung allowing rain water to drop onto the property

Question 7

Who can be sued?

Answer 7

The creator of the nuisance

Doesn’t need any interest in the land in which the nuisance takes place

Question 8

Hussain v Lancaster City Council (2000)

Answer 8

Victims of extreme racial harassment by persons using the highway
COA = d not liable as it did not involve d’s use of their land

No legal interest in the highway

Question 9

The occupier

Answer 9

Occupier of the premises from which the nuisance emanates will be liable for hay nuisance

Independent contractors
Trespassers
An act of nature

Question 10

Independent contractor

Answer 10

Danger created
Bower v Peate (1876) demolish house- damage=liable
“Special danger” _ special risk that a nuisance may be caused to neighbours

Question 11

Trespassers

Answer 11

Still liable if the ‘ nuisance’ is adopted by using the state of affairs for the occupiers own purpose
Or where the nuisance ‘continued’

Question 12

Sedleigh-Denfield O’Callaghan(1940)

Answer 12

Ditch on boundary of claimants land
Trespasser put culvert in the ditch-no grid put to prevent rubbish where it served no useful purpose
3years- cleaned out twice
Heavy storm- blocked and flooded claimants land
That an occupier who knows for the potential for the creation of nuisance to exist
Even though the original act was not the present occupier

Question 13

An act of nature

Goldman v Hargrave (1967)

Answer 13

Fire caused by lightening hitting a gum tree
Sections left to burn out itself
Weather deteriorated and fire reignited causing damage to the claimants land

Defendant owed the claimant a duty to get rid of the nuisance which he ought to have been aware arose from the natural state of affairs on his land

Question 14

Leakey v National Trust (1980)

Answer 14

Defendants owned a hill known as Barrow anymore
Claimants homes were at the foot of the hill
Hill would slip as a result of the action of the weather on the type of clay
Slips occurred to claimants land
Known 8 years
Where a potential nuisance exists resulting from an act of nature and the defendant was aware of the danger, it would be an injustice were the occupier not to be under a duty to ameliorate the nuisance

Do what is reasonable in the circumstances

Question 15

Landlords

Answer 15

Tenant and landlord have liability

Landlord who authorises the activity which creates the nuisance will be liable, if the nuisance is an inevitable result of the permitted activity

Question 16

Tetley and Others v Chitty and Others (1980)

Answer 16

Premises were leased for the purpose of a go-karting club
Noise was a natural and necessary consequence of the use of the go-karts
The landlords was liable for the nuisance which had been authorised

Question 17

3 elements must be proved

Answer 17

Unlawful, unreasonable use of land
Which causes indirect interference
With another’s land

Question 18

Unlawful use of land

Answer 18

Everyone has the right to use their land for their own purposes

Question 19

Foreseeability

Southwark London Borough Council v Mills and Others
Baxter v Camden London Borough Council (1999)

Answer 19

Lived in a block of flats owned by the councils

Soundproof was shit

Question 20

Elements

Answer 20

Locality
Duration
Malice
Sensitivity of the claimant

Question 21

Locality

Answer 21

Where the activity occurs is important

Question 22

Duration

Answer 22

For an activity to amount to a nuisance it must be continuous

Temporary doesn’t mean that it cannot amount to a nuisance
Extent of the interference is very relevant

Question 23

Andraee v Selfridge and Co ltd (1937)

Answer 23

Demolition work- excessive amount of noise and dust which interfered with the business of the hotel
Building work was not unreasonable
Excessive interference with the business meant that damages were payable

Injunctions will be granted where there is temporary interference can reasonably be dealt with or avoided

Question 24

Malice

Answer 24

In nuisance the defendants motive if it can be characterised as ill-will or spite, may result in the court regarding what would otherwise be a reasonable activity as unreasonable in the circumstances and therefore a nuisance

Question 25

Christie v Daley (1893)

Answer 25

C taught music- musical family Heard in D's house In retaliation D banged trays and beat on the wall to distract the claimant Purposeful =liable for malice

Question 26

Sensitivity of the claimant

Answer 26

Nuisance only operates to protect the claimants reasonable use of their land Where the use to which the claimant outs the land is unusually sensitive to things such as heat or fumes the defendant will not be liable

Question 27

Robinson v Kilvert (1889)

Answer 27

Brown paper stored on the ground floor of a warehouse Need particular conditions for it not to deteriorate Heat from the basement used by the defendant seeped into the ground floor and caused damage to the paper No nuisance The heating would not have caused problems for ordinary use of premises Particular character of paper stores that led to the damage

Question 28

Network v Rail Infrastructure v Morris (2004)

Answer 28

Recording studio close to a railway line D installed new track circuits which interfered with the claimants amplification system and caused the claimant to lose business as a result D not Liable It was not forseeable that the installation would interfere with the claimants use of land in such a way

Question 29

Indirect interference

Answer 29

Consequences suffered by the claimant are the indirect result of the defendants activity or the state of affairs on the defendants land

Question 30

Defences

Answer 30

Prescription Statutory consent Planning consent

Question 31

Prescription

Answer 31

It is possible for a person to obtain a prescriptive right to carry out an activity that in the eyes of some amounts to a private nuisance The activity complained of must have been continuously carried on for at least 20 years Actionable as a private nuisance with nobody taking action Care should be taken in relation to this defence Needs a neighbour who would have complained

Question 32

Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

Answer 32

More than 20 years a confectioner had carried out a business using a industrial pestle and mortar to grind sugar Linked with doctor Noise+ vibration meant new consulting room could not be used Injunction placed cos room just built alloying prescriptive right to exist

Question 33

Statutory Authority

Answer 33

Commercial enterprises and public utilities needing specific legislation Redevelopment of the Docklands, Channel Tunnel, hsr tunnel and London Other laws -environmental mean he may be needed However the defence may not be available if discretion to the act is exercised improperly

Question 34

Metropolitan Asylum District Hospital v Hill (1881)

Answer 34

Smallpox hospital | Not available d as sited in area that could cause a nuisance

Question 35

Planning permission

Answer 35

Is granted by local authorities by using delegated statutory powers Those making the decisions are the elected representatives of the local community Suitability of proposals for the particular area Locality considered

Question 36

Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd (1993)

Answer 36

Council alleged a public nuisance was being caused by the operation of a former naval dockyard as a commercial enterprise Heavy goods vehicles disturbing local population at night Planning permission given with knowledge 1 entrance causing issue Activities can't involve nuisance

Question 37

Wheeler and Another v JJ Saunders and Others (1996)

Answer 37

Claimants bought a farmhouse on land next to farmland and got planning permission to convert outbuildings into holiday Homes D got 2 pig housing units with planning permission Smell made nuisance But d said they had planning permission so no nuisance could be actionable

Question 38

Law

Answer 38

Consent granted for a development meaning a change in locality an actionable nuisance will not arise provided done with reasonable care Not always a defence

Question 39

Remedies | Injunctions

Answer 39

Where a nuisance is continuing or likely to recur. Should be granted unless the injury suffered by the claimant is trivial or temporary in nature Activity is an isolated incident or so irregular that any injury can be compensated with damages

Question 40

Swaine v Great Northern Railway (1864)

Answer 40

Manure heaps generally caused no trouble but intermittently became offensive when removal was delayed and dead dogs and cats were found in the heap. Problem was occasional making the problem inappropriate Those inconvenienced were awarded damages

Question 41

Miller v Jackson (1977)

Answer 41

Cricket ground used for 70+ years when a new housing estate was built Houses so close that balls fell in gardens Claimants said nuisance and negligence Majority found a nuisance but damages awarded

Question 42

Kennaway v Thompson (1980)

Answer 42

Land she knew used for water sports for last 10 years Expanded to world class events with noisier boats Too loud to tolerate Refused but COA found that it was bound by Shelfer v City of London Electric lighting unless small, injunction applied 1 annual event over 3 days 3 club events lasting 1day spread 4 weeks apart Power of boats used and number f water skiing boats at any time

Question 43

Damages

Answer 43

Claimant able to recover damages for any loss which had occurred in the value of the land and for any physical consequences of the nuisance or business loss Uncertainty over personal injury claims Because of Hunter v Canary Wharf where not awarded Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

Question 44

Abatement

Answer 44

Right to take action to reduce or eliminate nuisance If they need access to property they must let them know Not cause unnecessary damage Serious risk of damage to people or property action must be taken without notice

Question 45

Coming to a nuisance

Answer 45

Without prescription applying time makes no difference to nuisance

Question 46

Bliss v Hall (1838)

Answer 46

Tallow-chandlery nuisance Emitting noisome, noxious and offensive vapours, fumes and smells and stenches 3 years no defence

Question 47

Social utility Doesn't matter if helps locals Adams v Ursell ((1913)

Answer 47

Fried fish shop closed Where it was situated Great hardship to d and poor people was irrelevant