Private Nuisance

Question 1

Private Nuisance:

Define

Answer 1

An unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it
(Read v Lyons)

Question 2

Private Nuisance:

What C must prove

Answer 2

1. Locus Standi
2. Capacity in which D is liable
3. Interference with use and enjoyment of land
4. Interference must be substantial and unreasonable
5. Causation and Remoteness

Question 3

Private Nuisance:
Locus Standi (Hunter v Canary Wharf)

Answer 3

C must have a proprietary interest in the land (freeholders, tenants, occupiers in exclusive possession - not licensees)

Question 4

Private Nuisance:

Malone v Laskey

Answer 4

Neither children nor wife of owner-occupier of land can sue in private nuisance

Question 5

Private Nuisance:

3 types of nuisance (Hunter v Canary Wharf)

Answer 5

1. Encroachment on neighbour’s land
2. Direct physical injury to land
3. Interference with quiet enjoyment of the land (aka loss of amenity)

Question 6

Private Nuisance:

Non-actionable interferences

Answer 6

Disruption to TV reception (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
Interferences with elegant or dainty modes of living (Walter v Selfe)
Right to view is no actionable (Aldred’s Case)

Question 7

Private Nuisance:

Walter v Selfe

Answer 7

Interference must be something that materially interferes with ‘ordinary conduct’

Question 8

Private Nuisance:

Is interference substantial and unreasonable (Sedleigh-Denfield)?

Answer 8

Factors that court will consider:

• Frequency and duration of interference
• Excessiveness of conduct/extent of harm
• Abnormal sensitivity (application of eggshell skull rule)
• Character of neighbourhood
• Public benefit
• Malice on part of defendant

Question 9

Private Nuisance:

Test for unlawfulness of interference

Answer 9

‘What is reasonable according to the ordinary usage of mankind living in…a particular society’

Question 10

Private Nuisance:

The longer the duration and frequency of the interference, the more likely it is that it is unreasonable

Answer 10

Miller v Jackson

Question 11

Private Nuisance:

What might be considered a nuisance in a fancy area, might not be in another area

Answer 11

Sturges v Bridgman

Question 12

Private Nuisance:

Where planning permission has been given, this may be deemed to have changed the character of the neighbourhood

Answer 12

Gillingham BC v Medway Docks

Question 13

Private Nuisance:

A smelly chip shop can have a benefit to the community

Answer 13

Adams v Ursell

Question 14

Private Nuisance:
If defendant has been trying to annoy the claimant, interference more likely to be considered unreasonable and therefore unlawful

Answer 14

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

Question 15

Private Nuisance:

No claims for personal injury or personal property. Claimant would run negligence claims for both

Answer 15

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Question 16

Private Nuisance:

C can recover for consequential economic loss, where it has flowed from damage to property and/or personal discomfort

Answer 16

Andreae v Selfridge

Question 17

Private Nuisance:

Who can be sued?

Answer 17

1. Creator of nuisance
2. Current occupier of land
3. Landlord

Question 18

Private Nuisance:

Current occupier of land can be sued

Answer 18

Can be sued for own nuisances and some created by others, like:

1. Nuisance created by employee acting in course of employment
2. Nuisance created by independent contractor, provided work carries special danger
3. Where occupier has adopted nuisance

Question 19

Private Nuisance:

Current occupier of land may be sued for nuisance created by visitor

Answer 19

Lippiatt

Question 20

Private Nuisance:

Current occupier of land may be sued for nuisance created by predecessor in title

Answer 20

St Anne’s Well Brewery

Question 21

Private Nuisance:

Current occupier of land may be sued for nuisance created by trespasser

Answer 21

Sedleigh-Denfield

Question 22

Private Nuisance:

Current occupier of land may be sued for nuisance created by natural event

Answer 22

Leakey v National Trust

Question 23

Private Nuisance:

Landlord may be sued if he has impliedly/expressly authorised nuisance through letting out premises

Answer 23

Tetley v Chitty

Question 24

Private Nuisance:

Landlord may be sued if he has promised to repair but fails to do so

Answer 24

Payne v Rogers

Question 25

Private Nuisance:

Effective defences

Answer 25

1. Prescription (if nuisance has continued for at least 20 years)
2. Statutory authority
3. Contributory negligence
4. Consent
5. Act of God/nature

Question 26

Private Nuisance:

Possible defence if D can show nuisance was inevitable consequence of doing what statute authorised

Answer 26

Allen v Gulf Oil

Question 27

Private Nuisance:

Possible defence if nuisance was due to act of god/nature if D has not adopted or continued nuisance

Answer 27

Wringe v Cohen

Question 28

Private Nuisance:

Ineffective defences

Answer 28

1. Claimant came to nuisance
2. Public benefit
3. Contributory acts of others
4. Planning permission

Question 29

Private Nuisance:

Remedies available

Answer 29

1. Damages
2. Injunction
3. Damages in lieu of injunction
4. Abatement

Question 30

Private Nuisance:

Remedies - Damages

Answer 30

Damages for:
Physical damage
Personal discomfort (Hunter v Canary Wharf)

Question 31

Private Nuisance:

Remedies - Injunction

Answer 31

Prohibitory/mandatory/quia timet (before nuisance committed, in anticipation of it)

Question 32

Private Nuisance:

Remedies - quia timet injunction

Answer 32

Can be used if:

• C is almost certain to incur damages
• Such damage is imminent
• D will not stop his course of conduct without court order

Question 33

Private Nuisance:

Remedies - Damages in lieu of injunction

Answer 33

This is appropriate where:

• case suitable for injunction in first place
• injury to C’s legal rights is small (small payment)
• if injunction would be oppressive to D

Question 34

Private Nuisance:

Remedies - Abatement

Answer 34

Removal of interference by victim.

This normally requires notice, except in emergency (Lemmon v Webb)