Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
9 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Who can sue? |
Only persons with an interest in the land can sue (Own, rent or other exclusive possession of it) Hunter V Canary Wharf |
|
|
Who can be sued? |
1. The creator of the nuisance (Thomas V National Union of Mineworkers) 2. The occupier of the land from which the nuisance originated (Sedleigh- Denfield V O’Callaghan) 3. The owner of the land from which the nuisance originated (Tetley V Chitty) |
|
|
What three elements must the claimant prove? |
1. Indirect interference with the enjoyment of the land 2. The interference was unreasonable 3. The unreasonable interference caused damage to the claimant |
|
|
Explain the first element- Indirect interference with the enjoyment of the land |
There must be an indirect interference with the enjoyment of the land (Physical damage or Loss of amenity) caused indirectly Tree roots- Davey V Harrow Corporation Smells- Wheeler V Saunders Noise- Christie V Davey Vibrations- Sturgess V Bridgeman |
|
|
Explain the second element- the interference must be unreasonable |
Must go beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour (Objective test) 1. Sensitivity- not liable for damage caused by being abnormally sensitive (Robinson V Kilvert) 2. Locality- Where the nuisance takes place will have an important bearing on the claim (St Helens smelting V Tipping) 3. Duration- the longer it goes on the more likely it is to be considered unreasonable (Spicer V Smee) but need not to be a long time can be once (Kimbolton fireworks V Crown river boat cruises) 4. Malice- Done with bad motive (Christie V Davey) In applying these factors the court must balance the right of the landowner to use his land as he pleases and the right of a neighbour to not have his enjoyment interfered with |
|
|
Explain the third element- The unreasonable interference must cause damage to the claimant |
But For test- Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Reasonable foreseeability test (Wagon Mound) applies to nuisance (Cambridge Water company V Easter counties leather) |
|
|
What defences are there? |
1. Statutory Authority (Allen V Gulf Oil refining ltd) 2. Prescription- Nuisance ongoing for 20 years and the claimant is aware (Sturges V Bridgeman) 3. Act of a stranger |
|
|
What are inapplicable defences |
1. Activity provides a public benefit (Bellew V Cement Co) 2. The D had used care and skill to avoid the nuisance 3. Consent- coming to the nuisance |
|
|
What are the potential remedies? |
1. Injunction (partial or perpetual) Kennaway V Thompson 2. Damages 3. Abatement (self help) |
