private nuisances Flashcards
(21 cards)
hunter v canary wharf
people with no legal interest in the property cannot claim
malone v laskey
neighbours generator caused dislodge of object and caused injury - she could not bring suit as she lived in house bleonginh to husbands employer - she did not have an ‘interst’ in the land
jones v portsmouth city council
roots of trees enroached on claimants property led to subsidence of roprety - ortsmouth responsible for mainting hte treesa on all hghways - held laible despite not owning or occpying the land becasues they had laawful wxercise of control over the tree
sedleigh denfield v o callaghan
local authorit without knowledge of the defendants laid a pipe - grate became blocked and neighburing land bcame flodded -d by this time they knew od th eppe - liable as an occupoer who knows of a danger and allows it to continue id liabel
leakey v national trust
aware that a natural mound could slip - following a hot summer it did and damaged claimants cottage - liable as they knew slippage might happen and failed to prevent it
thomspon schwab v costaki
running of a brothel in a respectable residential area mounted to a nuisance
laws v floringdale
injunction awarded wher a ship in an area of shops was converted into a sex shop
hirose electricla v peal ingredient
comp;ained about strong odours - since industrial area disagreeable smells msut be expected AND the smell occured for a very long time before they decided to take legal action
coventry v lawrence
c bought cottage near race track - complained about noise but the tracls had planning permission to be there therefore no nuisance
st helens smelting v tipping
nature of locality is irrelevant when nuisance causes pphysical damage - fumes caused damage to claimants trees - unfair to say she moced to the nuisance as d cannot argue to have a right in pescription to emit toxic fumes
crown river cruises vs kimbolton fireworks
carried out a firework display that set fireto river barge - claim allowed as even though display only lasted a short amount of tme , the barge was permanently morred so t could be seen as an exrension of the claimants land
de keysrs royal hotel v spicer bros
temporary activity may still constitute a nuisance as temporary worlk injunction rom wrking at night as it was considered unrreaonable asnf interefered with claimantts sleep
robinson v kilvert
brown paper vs paper boxes in basement - heat caused brown papeer to dry out - it wouldnot have dried out normal paper so no injunction or damages granted
network rail v morris
railway circuits interfered with thw amplification of guitars causing loss of business - amplified guitars abnirmally sensitivej equipment and interfernce not forceeable thefore defenfant not liable
hollywood silver fox farn v emmmett
c bred mink - d shot guns to frightsen animals so they woukd not breed 0 deliberate and unreasonable so amount to a nuisance
chritie v davy
c music teacher, f banged on walls and shoutef - injunction granted against him d ue to his deliberate and malicious behaviour
miller v jackson
c use of garden disruptef by tennis balls - tried o comprimise with high fences = court eirhged up use of ground and beenfit to community agaisnt c u se of garden - refused an injunciton
sturges v brigman
d factory caused vibration disturbing c new consulting room - prescription defence failed as nuisance began when room built
southwark v mills
tenants in counsil properties complained about lack of soundproofing - no nuisance 0 use of flats was reasonable
allen v gulf oil refining
d hadbeen given statory authority to acquire aite ;but not express permision to opetet it - hol said the operation was parliamnts inetion - nuisance was an inevitable cosnequene of the refienry - defence of statuyoty authority suceeded
wheeler v saunders
pig house planning permission - complaint of smells - planning permisson had not changed hte character of the neigbourhood so no defence
