term1 Definition1term2 Definition2term3 Definition3
Please sign in to your Google account to access your documents:
FACTS contractors building a reservoir, old mining tunnels improperly dealt with, reservoir burst and flooded neighbouring land
ELEMENTS OFTHE TORT
private nuisance - definition - who can sue?
ISSUES 1. Whether interference with television reception was capable of giving rise to an actionable nuisance 2. Whether an interest in property was required to bring an action in
HELD 1. There is no right of action in nuisance for interference with the television reception. 2. An interest in property is required to bring an action in nuisance. Khorasanjian v Bush overruled in so far as it holds that a mere licensee can sue in private nuisance.
Lord Hoffman: “In this case, however, the defendants say that the type of interference alleged, namely by the erection of a building between the plaintiffs' homes and the Crystal Palace transmitter, cannot as a matter of law constitute an actionable nuisance. This is not by virtue of anything peculiar to television. It applies equally to interference with the passage of light or air or radio signals or to the obstruction of a view. The general principle is that at common law anyone may build whatever he likes upon his land. If the effect is to interfere with the light, air or view of his neighbour, that is his misfortune. The owner's right to build can be restrained only by covenant or the acquisition (by grant or prescription) of an easement of light or air for the benefit of windows or apertures on adjoining land.”
Lord Lloyd: ‘Private nuisances are of three kinds. They are(1) nuisance by encroachment on a neighbour's land; (2) nuisance by directphysical injury to a neighbour's land; and (3) nuisance by interference with aneighbour's quiet enjoyment of his land.’
Electrical interference of a television signal does not constitute a nuisance in law.In general a nuisance will arise from something emanating from the defendant's land.
LORD HOFFMAN In relation to planning permission:"In a case such as this, where the development is likely to have an impact upon many people over a large area, the planning system is, I think, a far more appropriate form of control, from the point of view of both the developer and the public, than enlarging the right to bring actions for nuisance at common law. It enables the issues to be debated before an expert forum at a planning inquiry and gives the developer the advantage of certainty as to what he is entitled to build."
Lord Goff:‘an action inprivate nuisance will only lie at the suit of a person who has a right to theland affected. Ordinarily, such a person can only sue if he has the right toexclusive possession of the land, such as a freeholder or tenant in possession,or even a licensee with exclusive possession.’
private nuisance - who can be sued? - creators, occupiers and landlords
Held: The defendant was liable. An occupier may be liable for the acts of a trespasser if they adopt or continue the nuisance.
Lord Maugham: “My Lords, in the present case I am of opinion that the Respondents both continued and adopted the nuisance. After the lapse of nearly three years they must be taken to have suffered the nuisance to continue; for they neglected to take the very simple step of placing a grid in the proper place which would have removed the danger to their neighbour s land. They adopted the nuisance for they continued during all that time to use the artificial contrivance of the conduit for the purpose of getting rid of water from their property without taking the proper means for rendering it safe.”
Lord Wright:‘A balance has to be maintained between the right ofthe occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the right of his neighbournot to be interfered with.’
private nuisance - remoteness(foreseeability of nuisance) - Rylands v Fletcher: something must be brought onto the land or accumulated for unnatural use - the dangerous thing must escape - damage caused must be reasonably foreseeable
Held: Eastern Counties Leather were not liable as the damage was too remote. It was not reasonably foreseeable that the spillages would result in the closing of the borehole. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance and claims based on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in the same way as it applies to claims based in negligence. The Wagon Mound No 1 case applies to determine remoteness of damage.
Lord Goff: ‘Principle of give and take as between neighbouringoccupiers of land’
private nuisance - who can sue?
Khorasandjian v Bush [1993]
Held: His appeal was dismissed.
Dillon LJ: “To my mind, it is ridiculous if in this present age the law is that the making of deliberately harassing and pestering telephone calls to a person is only actionable in the civil courts if the recipient of the calls happens to have the freehold or a leasehold proprietary interest in the premises in which he or she has received the calls.” NB this case was overruled in Hunter v Canary Wharf
Dobson v Thames Water Utilities[2011]
private nuisance - who can be sued? - creators, occupiers and landlords - Rylands v Fletcher: defendant must control the land
Held: The Council were not liable for the acts of the tenants. Whilst they were aware that the family might commit acts of nuisance, they had not authorised the nuisance.
Vice-Chancellor: "In general, a landlord is not liable for nuisance committed by his tenant, but to this rule there is, so far as now in point, one recognised exception, namely, that the landlord is liable if he has authorised his tenant to commit the nuisance… The exception is not based on cause and probable result, apart from express or implied authority. In the present case, the corporation let No. 25, Walpole Road to the Scotts as a dwelling house on conditions of tenancy which expressly prohibited the committing of a nuisance, and, notwithstanding that the corporation knew the Scotts were likely to cause a nuisance, I do not think it is legitimate to say that the corporation impliedly authorised the nuisance."
private nuisance - who can be sued? - creators, occupiers and landlords - unreasonableness - factor: extent
FACTS Where a landlord expressly or impliedly gives his consent to a use of land which has as a necessary and natural consequence the cause of sufficient noise to be classed as a nuisance, the landlord can be liable in nuisance. A local authority gave permission to a go-kart club to operate a go-kart track on certain land in its ownership, and subsequently granted a seven year lease to the club for the purpose of operating the track. T and others, who were ratepayers living near the track, sought an injunction and damages against the authority, based on the nuisance caused by the noise made by the track.
Held, that the noise was a natural and ordinary consequence of the use of the track for go-karting and the council had given permission for that use, so the council was liable in nuisance. Damages alone were a wholly inadequate remedy and an injunction would also be granted.
Need help typing ? See our FAQ (opens in new window)
Please sign in to create this set. We'll bring you back here when you are done.
Discard Changes Sign in
Please sign in to add to folders.
Sign in
Don't have an account? Sign Up »
You have created 2 folders. Please upgrade to Cram Premium to create hundreds of folders!