Nuisance

Front 1

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Back 1

must have interest in land. + Nuisance does not protect recreational facilities, eg view, TV& radio reception

Front 2

definition of Nuisance, Read v Lyons

Back 2

unlawful activity that is harmful or noxious and interferes with another person's rights, use or enjoyment of their land

Front 3

Who can be sued? 1. The Creator
the occupier

Back 3

Who can be sued? 2. The occupier.
+ Occupier IS liable for nuisance caused by acts of nature which he could reasonably prevent. Earth capsized onto plaintiff's land (natural causes), but National trust did nothing to prevent it hence liable.
Leakey v National Trust

Front 4

An exceptional case where occupier was liable for independent contractors as it was forseeable that they will cause nuisance

Back 4

Matania v National Provincial Bank

Front 5

Occupier is not liable for nuisance acaused by trespassers unless he acquiesces (gypsies on council land next to posh car dealer)

Back 5

Page Motors v Epsom

Front 6

Occupier is not liable for nuisance caused by acts of nature which he could not have reasonably prevented. cf Leakey v National Trust

Back 6

Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough

Front 7

Landlords generally not liable unless it was forseeable that tenant would cause nuisance (go-cart club)

Back 7

Tetley v Chitty

Front 8

Damage must be established by claimant and recovery will be made to the extent the damage was reasonably forseeable.

Back 8

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties

Front 9

not possible to claim for PI in private nuisance

Back 9

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Front 10

Elements of Nuisance: 2. Damage.
types of damage in private nuisance: physical damage & sensible pesonal discomfort (SPD). no diminution of value of land in the latter cas

Back 10

St Helens v Tipping

Front 11

Elements of Nuisance: 1. Indirect Interference (with enjoyment or use of land). aerial photos

Back 11

Bernstein v Skyviews

Front 12

Factors of unreasonable interference: Duration
6 times hit by ball over 30 years

Back 12

Bolton v Stone

Front 13

Factors of unreasonable interference: Duration
can be short if fire

Back 13

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

Front 14

Factors of unreasonable interference: Locality (nuisance in belgrave sq / not in bermondsey). Sex shop in Pimlico.

Back 14

Laws v Florinplace

Front 15

Locality will not be considered when physical damage is concerned!!!

Back 15

St Helens v Tipping

Front 16

Factors of unreasonable interference: Locality. planning permit does not authorise nuisance: pig farming case

Back 16

Wheeler v Saunders

Front 17

planning permission can change the character of an area from residential to industrial so what used to be nuisance is no longer nuisance. or vice versa.

Back 17

Gillingham v Medway

Front 18

Public benefit does not authorise nuisance. Chip shop in a working class area was a nuisance.

Back 18

Adams v Ursell

Front 19

Public benefit will affect remedies (injunction full or partial/ order for compensation only)

Back 19

Miller v Jackson

Front 20

Factors of unreasonable interference: Abnormal Sensitivity. sensitive brown paper. No nuisance if hypothetical reasonable claimant would not have been affected - otherwise full extent of damage recoverable

Back 20

Robinson v Kilvert

Front 21

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

Back 21

Factors of unreasonable interference: Malice is unreasonable. neighbour shooting in the air to prevent foxes from breeding.

Front 22

Moving into Nuisance: not a valid defence
the village cricket case

Back 22

Miller v Jackson

Front 23

Defence: 20 years prescription. Confectionary existed for over 20 yrs and claimant doctor claimed nuisance only after extension of his premises. Valid defence

Back 23

Sturges v Bridgeman

Front 24

strict liability where the defendant brought something unnatural (likely to do mischief) onto its land and it escaped. An isolated incedent is enough

Back 24

Rylands v Fletcher

Front 25

Rylands case: no element of escape, no liability: claimant injured by explosion on the defendant's land

Back 25

Read v Lyons

Front 26

public nuisance claimant must have suffered special damage over anb above others - dredging costs

Back 26

Tate v Lyle v GLC

Front 27

any nuisance is public which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of her majesty's subjects, AG v PYA Quarries

Back 27

public nuisance definition

Front 28

how many is class? q of fact for the court. 538 individuals are not class (racial hatred letters)

Back 28

r v rimmington

Front 29

picketing on the highway

Back 29

Thomas v NUM

Front 30

laimant in public nuisance: no need to have interest in land but must suffer over and above the class: damage includes PI: one-off events sufficient:

Back 30

public nuisance

Front 31

pure economic loss recoverable in public nuisance

Back 31

Rose v Miles

Front 32

rylands - for his own purposes anything likely to do mischief (acid)

Back 32

Rainham v Belvedere Fish Guano

Front 33

escapes (in this case no escape as claimant injured on def's land; plus PI not recoverable and for Rylands, munitions are not an an natural use of land in wartime)

Back 33

Read v Lyons

Front 34

Rickards v Lothian

Back 34

rylands (non-natural use) no liability as ordinary and proper use of land

Front 35

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

Back 35

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

Front 36

Defence to Rylands: act or default of the claimant (escape caused by actions of the claimant

Back 36

Dunn v Birmingham Canal

Front 37

Charing cross Electricity v Hydraulic

Back 37

Defence to Rylands: statutory authority

Front 38

Defence to Rylands: act of a stranger (will operate if no negligence on the part of the defendant)

Back 38

Defence to Rylands: act of a Hale v Jennings Bros

Front 39

Public Nuisance: "class of HM subjects" can be a small number of people

Back 39

AG v Hastings

Front 40

Kennaway v Thompson

Back 40

Partial injunction in private nuisance. water sports club

Front 41

music teacher v angry neighbour. the neighbour's malice tipped the scales in claimant's favour. neighbours counterclaim was not allowed. cf bradford v pickles where neighbour drained his land on purpose to prevent water from his neighbours site. seemingly bad intentions were not taken into account

Back 41

Christie v Davey

Front 42

-defendant BRINGS onto his land and accumulates (rylands+, giles v walker -);
-something likely to do MISCHIEF (classic case - chemicals (Cambridge water+);
- if it ESCAPEs (Read v Lyons -);
- NON-natural user (added by HL in Rylands; Read v Lyons -, Transco -);
-(no fault necessary but - FORSEEABLE DAMAGE (Cambridge water-)

Back 42

rylands elements

Front 43

rylands claim requires interest in land; no pi is recoverable; subset of private nuisance

Back 43

Transco v Stockport

Front 44

Defence of Statutory Authority

Back 44

Allen v Gulf Oil