Private Nuisance

Question 1

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

Answer 1

• A pipe, laid by the local authority, but on D’s land, was blocked flooding the neighbouring land.
• An occupier who knows of a danger and allows it to continue is liable in nuisance, even if he/she has not created the danger him/herself.
• Defendant

Question 2

Leakey v National Trust

Answer 2

• There was a large natural mound on a hillside on D’s land. They were aware that it could slip and following a hot summer it did slip, damaging the claimant’s cottage.

Question 3

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd

Answer 3

• Residents in Docklands complained of interference with TV reception when Canary Wharf was being built.
• Loss of a recreational facility is not sufficient interference to give rise to an action in nuisance.
• Only those with an interest in the land, not members of families, have a right to bring an action in nuisance.

Question 4

Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd

Answer 4

• A river barge was set alight by flammable debris, from a 20 minute firework display.
• Even a short-term activity can occur to nuisance.

Question 5

Robinson v Kilvert

Answer 5

• Paper boxes were stored in hot and dry conditions which caused paper stored above them to dry out.
• If the claimant is unduly sensitive, a nuisance will not be found.

Question 6

Christie v Davey

Answer 6

• D was annoyed by his neighbour’s music and deliberately banged tray on the walls, blew whistles and shouted to disturb the neighbours.
• D’s deliberate and malicious behaviour amounted to a nuisance.

Question 7

Miller v Jackson

Answer 7

• Claimant’s use of their garden was disrupted by cricket balls being hit into it from the adjoining recreation ground.
• The use of a sports ground and its benefit to the community was balanced against the claimant’s use of their garden. The community use outweighed the private use.

Question 8

Sturges v Bridgman

Answer 8

• Doctor built consulting rooms in his garden on the boundary to a sweet factory. He complained of vibrations from machinery.
• The defence of prescription failed as the nuisance began when the consulting room was built. The period before the building was erected didn’t count.

Question 9

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining

Answer 9

• Residents near an oil refinery brought a nuisance as Ds did not have express permission to operate it.
• The refinery had statutory authority to operate as this must have been Parliament’s intention.

Question 10

Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co.

Answer 10

• Planning permission was granted to use a dockyard as a commercial port but nuisance was caused when lorries accessed the port.
• As the character of the neighbourhood had been changed by planning permission, what could have previously been a nuisance could now be considered reasonable.

Question 11

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 11

• Planning permission had been given for speedway and later for other motor sports. A claim of noise nuisance was made limiting the use of the track.
• SC decided the rule in Sturges about the character of neighbourhood still applies.