public nuisance Flashcards
What is Private Nuisance?
- Rogers
- Hunter v Canary Wharf
- Rapier
Rogers: it is the Unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land.
Rapier - it’s a Strict liability offence.
Hunter: Nuisance protects of interests in land
Private Nuisance: Balancing Act
- Sedleigh-Denfield
- Kennaway
Lj Wright in Sedleigh - its a balancing act between the interest of the C and D. You can do what ever you want on your own land as long as it doesn’t interfere with the you neighbours rights.
LJ Lawson in Kennaway: you have to tolerate nuisance . when the irrational goes beyond what C should expect from their neighbour then claim can be justified.
The Reasonable User:
- Benjamin
- Hunter v Canary Wharf
Benjamin - interference must be more than trivial for a claim.
Hunter: Law will not restrict how one decides to use his land so long as the interference is with the neighbours land is not unreasonable.
The Reasonable User:
St Helens - Lord Westbury
Case Facts:
- C bought estate near an industrial area - complained the fuels from factory caused trees to die.
- D claimed that C should have known this was to be expected as it is the character of the neighbourhood.
Lord Westbury Held:
- Character of Neighbourhood is only relevant in circumstance where C’s complaint is solely bases on the enjoyment of land - based on context.
- But where D’s actions has caused physical damage - characteristics are irrelevant. and they are actionable without dispute.
Characteristics- Nature of Locality - Emanations.
- Strudges
- Murdoch
Strudges: its context based in regards to emanations - what counts as nuisance in one place wouldn’t constitute one in another.
Murdoch - where only one person complains about the Emanations the claim will not succeed and does not amount to nuisance.
- the noise form the factory was beyond the safety level but with lack of claimants the claim failed.
Characteristics- Nature of Locality - Emanations.
Planning Permission:
- St Helens
- Coventry v Lawrence
- Wheeler
St Helens: planning permission was previously relevant in 2 context:
- where it may permit excessive noise.
- where it may change the nature of the locality
Coventry: held planning permission is not a defence for nuisance.
- C bought home near go cart park - made bare noise.
- D claimed he had planning permision
- SC held this does not change the nature of the locality. they cannot be enforced against or override another right to their land.
Wheeler: Upheld this notion
- Planning permission to extend pig park - close to holiday park and emanated bad smell.
- Court held planning permission was not relevant here. .
Characteristics- Nature of Locality - Emanations.
Planning Permission:
- Barr
- Gillingham
Barr - council had permission was waste land - planning permission did not negate the nuisance.
Gillingham: planning permission could change the nature of locality - D got permission to turn an area in urban land.
Duration and Frequency:
- Cunrad
Context makes a difference
- De keyser
- Crown River Cruise
- Bolton
Nuisance involved substantial interference over a period of time.
- Cunrad: has to be for a substantial length of time.
- De keyser: Drilling outside a hotel for one night was enough to constitute a nuisance.
- Crown: 20 Min Firework display was enough to constitute nuisance as the ashes rained on C’s property.
- Botlon - cricket balls going out the grounds 6 times over 30 years was not enough to constitute nuisance, not frequent enough.
Utility of the D’s conduct
Miller v Jackson
Lord Denning:
- look at the usefulness of the nuisance
- C’s cricket balls in this escaped frequently but LD claimed cricket grounds served a social purpose so the cricket grounds was not closed down.
Abnormal Sensitivity
- Robinson
- Mckinnon
- National Railway Infrastructure
Nuisance must affect the ‘ordinary person’
Robinson - where fumes destroyed C’s paper the courts held the paper was overly/abnormally sensitive - there ws no nuisance.
McKinnon - once claim is established - D is liable for the full extent of C’s loss - C’s sensitive flowers destroyed by toxic gases from C - claim successful as the gas can kill any flower.
National railway - complained train signals messed with his recording - held that his activity and premises was overly sensitive.
- courts acknowledge this may have changed as technology has advanced.
Malice
- Christie v Davey
- Hollywood Silver Fox.
- Bradford Corp
Malice can be used as evidence of Nuisance:
- Christie - Banging on wall during piano lesson was held as improper use of property - malice - no claim.
- Hollywood - D shooting caused C’s fox to lose baby = malicious conduct is an improper use of his land.
- Bradford: D drained water on his land to cut of C’s supply.
- held not to be malicious as he wanted C to buy the land.
it was a legitimate use of his property
Who can sue?
- Malone.
- Khorasandijan
- Hunter.
Those with Propriety interest in the land can sue.
Malone - traditional approach
- only people with propriety interstate’s in the land can sue - a licensee was not permitted to claim.
Khorasandijan -
- they departed from he traditional approach- allowed C would lived with her mother to claim due to the severity of they case.
- Hunter - reaffirmed the traditional approach: there is need for propriety intrest in land or exclusive possession to bring a claim.
- case facts - building disrupted the residents TV signals
- held no actionable claim because watching TV is a recreational activity = make premises abnormally sensitive.
who can sue?
Pemberton
Delaware
Jones
Pemberton: tolerated trespasser was allowed to bring a claim.
Delaware: where the C didn’t have propriety interest or exclusive possession when the nuisance began, C is still allowed to claim because the damage affected the land in interest.
Jones: where a landlord has transferred his interest they can bring a claim if it affects this interest in the long term.
who can be sued?
Thompson
the person who created the nuisance can be sued, they don’t have to live in the property.
if the D cannot be traced then the occupier or the landlord can be sued.
Who can be sued? Occupier
- Matania
- Cocking
- Sedleigh
- Goldman
Matania - Occupier has control over the D - D was an independent contractor hired by the occupier = control.
Cocking - the O in control or possession of the property.
- D was the occupier’s daughter who paid no rent but lived in the property.
Sedleigh: the O adopts or continues the trespassers nuisance:
- D allowed the LA to put a pipe on his land that caused a flood unto C’s land.
Goldman - the O continuing the nuisance by act of nature.
- tree falls unto property, D burns it and the fire spread the O was liable.
