Private Nuisance - unlawful interference (duration + frequency and character of locality)- FS Flashcards
(9 cards)
What does “unlawful” interference mean in the context of private nuisance?
In private nuisance, “unlawful” refers to an unreasonable interference with the claimant’s use or enjoyment of their land. It does not mean criminal conduct.
How does the duration and frequency of interference influence whether it is considered unreasonable?
: The longer and more frequent the interference, the more likely it is to be deemed unreasonable. Courts recognize that some short-term disruption is tolerable, but prolonged disturbances can constitute private nuisance.
How was the principle of unreasonable duration illustrated in the case similar to Kennaway v Thompson?
In that case, the court considered the length, timing, and repetition of noise from a nearby motorboat club. A recurrent pattern of interference over time was key to finding the defendant liable.
How might prolonged building work by neighbors amount to private nuisance?
If construction causes daily noise and vibrations over an extended period (e.g., more than a year), as in the example of Anjali, it is likely to constitute unreasonable interference, thus actionable as private nuisance.
What is the significance of the character of the locality in assessing private nuisance?
The nature of the area (urban vs. rural) is relevant only to sensible personal discomfort claims. What may be acceptable in a city may not be acceptable in a countryside setting.
How did the principle in Gillingham Borough Council v Medway illustrate the effect of planning permission on the character of the locality?
Planning permission in that case changed a residential area into a commercial port, and as a result, increased noise and traffic were no longer deemed a nuisance. Planning permission had altered the character of the locality.
Can planning permission justify an ongoing nuisance?
No, planning permission cannot justify an interference that amounts to a nuisance if it does not change the locality’s character. This was established in a case like Wheeler v JJ Saunders, where planning for pig sheds did not change the rural nature, and the smells were still actionable.
When assessing reasonableness, how does the court distinguish between personal discomfort and property damage in relation to locality?
The character of the locality is only relevant to claims involving sensible personal discomfort (e.g., noise or odors). It is not a consideration in cases of physical property damage, which is actionable regardless of the area’s character.
What general legal principle underlies whether planning permission affects a private nuisance claim?
Planning permission may change the character of the locality, which affects whether an interference is considered reasonable. However, it cannot be used as a defense to justify an activity that constitutes a nuisance if it does not change the nature of the locality.
