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;
32 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Winfield and Jolowicz |
Unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of their land |
|
|
Malone v laskey Hunter v Canary Wharf |
Claimant must have an interest or exclusive possession in the land |
|
|
McKenna |
Can claim under art 8 |
|
|
Matania v national provisional bank |
Occupier exercises control over members |
|
|
Sturges v Bridgeman |
Locality is irrelevant for tangible nuisance |
|
|
Sturges v Bridgman |
Nuisance in belgrave square is not in Bermondsey |
|
|
Ocallaghan |
Balancing act |
|
|
Dr Keysers royal hotel |
Pile driving do it in the day |
|
|
Robertson v kilvert |
Is it an abnormal or unusual activity |
|
|
Network rail v cj Morris |
Using electronic equipment is a feature of everyday life |
|
|
Buxton LJ |
Foreseeability of the relevant damage would interfere |
|
|
Halsey v esso |
Damages to chattels only |
|
|
Romer LJ |
Affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of her majesty’s subjects |
|
|
Romer LJ |
Affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of her majesty’s subjects |
|
|
AG v PYA Quarries |
No absolute number for the number in a class Question of fact |
|
|
Romer LJ |
Affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of her majesty’s subjects |
|
|
AG v PYA Quarries |
No absolute number for the number in a class Question of fact |
|
|
AG for Ontario orange productions |
Pop concert AG stopped it |
|
|
Interference with WiFi network - Earnest |
Loss of business - direct and substantial damage |
|
|
Earnest being blocked in |
Loss of Custom - Fritz v Hobson |
|
|
Local authority action |
S222 local gov act 1972 |
|
|
Rylands v Fletcher |
Claimants mine flooded |
|
|
Exchequer chamber Blackburn J |
- brings on his land Something likely to do mischief - it escapes - non-natural use - foreseeability of damage of the relevant type |
|
|
1. Likely to do mischief |
Transco plc v Stockport |
|
|
1. Likely to do mischief |
Transco plc v Stockport |
|
|
Transco plc v Stockport |
Exceptionally high risk of danger if it escapes - if cooking oil escapes - high risk |
|
|
2. Escape |
Read v j llyons - no escape |
|
|
3. Non natural use |
Not naturally there Richards v Lothian |
|
|
Rickards v Lothian |
Increased danger to others should it escape |
|
|
Cambridge water co v eastern leather |
Storing substantial amounts of chemicals on your land is a non natural use |
|
|
Transco v Stockport |
Could you insure yourself on it? If not then not a natural use |
|
|
4. The forseaability of damage of the relevant type |
Cambridge water co - not foreseeable it would travel miles |
