Private Nuisance Flashcards
(28 cards)
What is a private nuisance? (2)
An interference with a persons enjoyment/use of their land- civil action, generally courts require it to be a continuing state of affairs
What is classed as a private nuisance? (3)
- Nuisance by encroachment on a neighbours land
- Nuisance by direct physical injury to neighbours land
- Nuisance by interference with a neighbours quiet enjoyment of land
Claimant
Must have an interest in the land (own/a right over the land) in order to claim private nuisance
Foster v Warblington
Facts: C was an oyster merchant who occupied oyster beds, he excluded everybody from them however couldn’t prove ownership of them
Held: C could bring a private nuisance action caused by the discharge of sewage by D into the beds bc he was in exclusive possession of the land even though he couldn’t prove his title
Malone v Laskey
Facts: Company had rented a house for a manager to live in, his wife was injured after a bracket fell of her head caused by vibrations of machinery on D’s property
Held: CoA decided that the wife couldn’t make a claim as she had no interest in the property
Hunter v Canary wharf and Hunter v London Docklands
Facts: In both cases the claimants included families as well as tenants/owners. First was an interference with TV signal caused by wharf construction and the other concerned dust damage during road construction
Held: HoL decided only households with a right to land to commence a private nuisance action- was an annoyance not a nuisance
Defendant (2)
Can be the person who causes the nuisance or, someone who allows it to continue
Leakey v National Trust
Facts: The trust took possession of a historic site and contunied an existing nuisnace of unstable land. A land slippage occurred on D’s land following drought then rain. D’s were aware of the erosion and there had been previous slippage
Held: Liable for the cost of repairs for C’s cottage and to make the area safe
Occupier is liable if… (3)
…. they should know/ought to know about the nuisance:
- Created by act of stranger
- Created by act of nature
- Created by previous occupier
Landlord is liable if… (3)
… 1. They authorise tenant to commit PN
- At the date of letting they know/ought to know PN
- PN created during tenancy & no agreement between them, making the tenant responsible for such repairs
Loss of amenity
Meaning loss of use/enjoyment of land- location is relevant however less so when physical damage occurs
Unreasonable use of land (5)
Courts consider factors:
- Sensitivity of C
- Duration/degree of interference
- Character of area
- Foreseeability of damage (Wagon Mound)
- Any malice on D’s part
Sturges v Bridgeman quote
“what may be a nuisance in Belgrave Square wouldn’t necessarily be so in Bermondsey”
Coming to a nuisance
No defence in a case of PN to argue that it was there long before C’s came to it
Miller v Jackson (character of area)
Facts: D’s members of a cricket club which existed over 70yrs, houses were built in a surrounding field and C owned one. She complained about cricket balls landing in her garden
Held: Liable in negligence and nuisance but an injuction to prevent it was refused and damages awarded instead
River cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks (duration/time)
Facts: 20m firework display set fire to some moored barges
Held: Even though it was short, there was physical damage so it was actionable
Degree of interference
The greater the degree, the more likely it will be a nuisance and unlawful- depend of time, place etc
Physical damage- even samll amounts may suffice
Murdoch v Glacier Metal (degree of interference)
Facts: C was being kept awake by a constant low level droning from D’s factory
Held: No nuisance- more noise from the nearby road to factory noise wouldn’t interfere with ordinary existence
McKinnon v Walker (sensitivity)
Facts: Gas leaked from D’s factory. C ran a plant nursery 600ft away and orchids were damaged
Held: Although orchids were unusually sensitive the court found that the gas would’ve damaged ordinary flowers- interference was unlawful
Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (malice)
Facts: C and D had a feud over a sign C put up that could be seen from D’s land. D got his son to firea shotgun near the property boundary knowing it would cause foxes to miscarry
Held: C entitled to an injunction and damages. Although its not unreasonable for a farmer to use a shotgun on his own land, D acted maliciously
Damage
PN is not actionable per se (by itself)- there must be some damage, harm, injury or inconvenience
Statutory authority (defence)
If D can show his/her conduct was authorised by law e.g. Civil Aviation Act 1982
Prescription (defence)
Claim by D that he/she has acquired the right to act in a particular way bc have done so for 20 years (Sturges v Bridgeman)
Remedies (3)
Damages, injuntions and abatement (C can deal with nuisance themselves reasonably)
D can argue damages would be a suitable alternative than injunction
