Private nuisance Flashcards

(36 cards)

1
Q

Definition

A

Read v Lyons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Recoverable damage: land and enjoyment but nit PI

A

Hunter v Canary Wharf

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Economic loss consequential on hunter is recoverable

A

Andreae v selfridge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Standing: right to exclusive possession

A

Hunter b Canary Wharf

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Wife and children of owner have no standing

A

Malone v laskey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Occupier liable for specially dangerous work by independent contractors

A

Matania v national provincial bank

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Occupier - adopted or created nuisance by VISITOR

A

Lippiat v Gloucestershire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Predecessors in title

A

St Anne’s well brewery trust v Roberts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Natural events liability for occupiers

A

Leakey v national trust

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

“Adopt” or “create”

A

Sedleigh-denfield v o’callaghan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Landlord liable or implied or express authorised nuisances

A

Tetley v chitty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Promises or can make repairs but fails to

A

Payne v Rogers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Material interference with ordinary conduct

A

Walter v selfe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

No nuisance for disruption to TV signal

A

Hunter b Canary Wharf

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Loss of a view

A

Alfred’s case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Interference with elegant or dainty modes of living

A

Walter v selfe

17
Q

Substantial and unreasonable

A

Sedleigh-den field v o’callaghan

18
Q

Isolated events only if emanates

A

Spicer v smee

19
Q

Example of excessive behaviour

A

Matania v national provincial bank

20
Q

Character of naighbourhood factor

A

Sturges v Bridgman

21
Q

Character of neighbourhood only relevant to interference with quiet enjoyment

A

Hasley v esso

22
Q

Planning permission affects character

A

Gillingham v Medway dock

23
Q

Public benefit chip shop

A

Adams v ursell

24
Q

Malice

A

Hollywood silver fox farm v emmett

25
Sensitivity of claimant ignored
Robinson v kilvert
26
Egg-shell skull rule if would have affected normal user
McKinnon industries v walker with sensitive orchids
27
Wagon mound test confirmed in
Cambridge waters
28
Prescription defence
Sturges v Bridgman
29
Statutory authority defence
Allen v gulf oil refining
30
Act of God defence
Wringe v Cohen
31
Planning permission ineffective defence
Wheeler v Saunders
32
Public benefit ineffective defence but relevant to injunctions
Miller v Jackson cricket; contrast kennaway v Thompson powerboats
33
Remedy: loss of amenity value o land
Hunter v Canary Wharf
34
Damages instead of injunction in some circumstances
Shelter v City of London
35
Abatement prior notice
Lemonn v Webb
36
Abatement: belongings must be returned
Hills v broker