Private Nuisance, Public Nuisance And Rylands

Front 1

Private Nuisance

Back 1

- Includes noise, smell and vibrations.

Front 2

Public Nuisance

Back 2

- Obstruction of highway, must affect a class of people.

Front 3

Rylands

Back 3

- Covers something that escapes onto someone else's land.

Front 4

Read v Lyons

Back 4

Held: Nuisance described as any activity that is harmful or noxious that interferes with another person's rights use or enjoyment of land.

Front 5

Malone v Laskey

Back 5

Held: First thing that needs to be established is whether the claimant has a legal interest in the land. This was confirmed in (Hunter v Canary Wharf)

Front 6

Khorasandjian v Bush

Back 6

Held: Daughter of owner able to claim under nuisance. This has now been overruled by Hunter v Canary Wharf.

Front 7

Dobson v W Thames

Back 7

Held: Allows those without an interest in land to claim in human rights.

Front 8

Thomas v NUM

Back 8

Facts: Picketing on a highway caused disruption.

Held: Allows the creator of the nuisance to be sued.

Front 9

Matania v NPB

Back 9

Facts: An occupier's contractors created excessive dust/noise.

Held: The occupier of the land can also be sued, even if he doesn't personally create the nuisance.

Front 10

Elements of a private nuisance claim

Back 10

One must prove:

1. Indirect interference (Denfield v O'Callahan ).

2. Damage caused - This can either be actual property damage (Lemon v Webb) or sensible person discomfort (St Helen's Smelting v Tipping).

3. Unlawful = Unreasonable interference. This involves the balance of a number of factors considered by the courts when assessing whether the damage was unlawful. (Bamford v Turnley)

Front 11

Lemmon v Webb

Back 11

Facts: An overhanging tree was damaging the claimant's land.

Held: Claimant cut overhanging branches without notice as a form of self-help remedy. (Abatement).

Front 12

Kennaway v Thompson

Back 12

Time and duration consideration.

Held: It is necessary to show that the nuisance is continuous. However, it could be an isolated incident that indicates an underlying state of affairs (Spicer v Smee). Obtained an injunction remedy.

Front 13

Adams v Ursell

Back 13

Character of neighbourhood, public benefit.

Facts: Fumes from chip shop was a nuisance to a resident.

Held: Could be argued that D is providing a public service, but the courts are unlikely to allow this as they are reluctant to impose to heavy a public burden on the claimant. (Miller v Jackson).

Front 14

Gillingham v Medway

Back 14

Held: Planning permission may change the area. Question of nuisance will be decided on that development and use, not as it was before.

Front 15

Wheeler v Saunders

Back 15

Held: Planning permission does not amount to a statutory authority.

Front 16

Robinson v Kilvert

Back 16

Facts: Claimant claimed nuisance over damage to heat sensitive paper.

Held: The courts assume that everyone has normal sensitivity. Abnormal sensitivity = No nuisance. More likely to succeed if everyone is affected (McKinnon v Walker).

Front 17

McKinnon v Walker

Back 17

Facts: Claimant's sensitive flowers were damaged by fumes.

Held: Normal flowers were also damaged, so claimant could recover damages in respect of the flowers.

Front 18

Hollywood SF v Emmett

Back 18

Facts: Claimant fired a gun on his land, aiming solely to annoy.

Held: This was held to be a nuisance because of malice.

Front 19

Cambridge Water

Back 19

Held: Damage must be reasonably foreseeable.

Front 20

Miller v Jackson

Back 20

Facts: Cricket balls hit over houses.

Held: No defence to state the claimant came to the nuisance. The claimant shouldn't be expected to take on a burden too great for benefit of the public.

Front 21

Defence of Prescription

Back 21

- Claimant can argue the activity has been going on for 20 years, so it should no longer be seen as a nuisance. However, clock does not start ticking until the claimant has been affected.

- Not a defence to say the claimant moved into the nuisance (Miller v Jackson).

- Not a defence in public nuisance.

Front 22

Other defences

Back 22

Statutory (Allen v Gulf Oil)
Consent (volenti)
Contrib. Neg
Acts of 3rd Party (i.e tourists etc)

(PI cannot be recovered for in nuisance).

Front 23

Dennis v MOD

Back 23

Remedy.

Facts: Claimant given 950 000 to compensate for aircraft noise.

Held: One can claim damages for loss of enjoyment

Front 24

AG v PYA Quarries

Back 24

Public nuisance described as: 'any activity that materially affects the comfort and convenience of a class of her majesty's subjects'.

Front 25

Tate & Lyle v GLC

Back 25

Held: No need to establish a proprietary interest in the land when claiming for public nuisance.

Front 26

R v Shorrock

Back 26

Held: Acid house party was a public nuisance.

Front 27

Rose v Miles

Back 27

Facts: Blocking a canal was a public nuisance.

Held: Claimant can claim for Damages for PI and pure economic loss, unlike private nuisance or Rylands.

Front 28

AG v Hastings

Back 28

Held: The class of people affected need only be small. Damage must be sufficiently widespread.

Front 29

Campbell v Paddington

Back 29

Held: Claimant must show they have suffered special damage over and above what others in the class have suffered.

Front 30

Rylands v Fletcher

Back 30

Facts: Flooding of mineshafts by water.

Held: Creates a strict liability test, meaning that liability can be imposed without proof of negligence (Strict liability). The rule that the defendent's use should be a 'non natural use' of his land.

Front 31

Elements of a Rylands claim

Back 31

1. Brings something onto the land for his own purpose (Giles v Walker).

2. Anything likely to cause mischief (Rainham v Belvedere - acid).

3. Escape (Read v Lyons)

4. Non-natural user (Rickards v Lothian)

5. Reasonably foreseeable damage (Cambridge Water)