Tort 5 Cases

Front 1

Two limbs of private nuisance:

Back 1

Read v Lyons & Co Ltd (1945)

Adopted above definition above, claimant must show:
- There is an interference with C’s use and enjoyment of land or some right over it
- The interference is unlawful

Front 2

Three types of interference...

Back 2

Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) (HL)

Three types of interference within private nuisance
- encroachment on neighbour’s land
- direct physical injury to neighbour’s land
- interference with quiet enjoyment of land

last of these is very broad and wide ranging, ie smells, dust, vibration, loss of light

Courts slower to find nuisance where loss of amenity is concerned

Front 3

Interference has to interfere with more than "dainty modes" of living...

Back 3

Walter v Selfe (1851)

Interference has to materially interfere with “ordinary comfort”, not elegant or dainty modes of living”

Front 4

Loss of prospect is not an actionable interference....

Back 4

Aldred’s Case (1610)
- Loss of prospect (a view) from your home is not an actionable interference

Front 5

Presence of a building disrupting TV is not actionable in nuisance

Back 5

Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) (HL)

The mere presence of a building which interferes with television reception is not actionable in private nuisance

Front 6

Lawful use is close to reasonable usage a particular society...

Back 6

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)

- No precise formula balancing right to be free on own land against right of neighbour against interference
- Useful test is what is reasonable usage according to ordinary usages of mankind in a particular society

It will always be a question of fact whether interference is unreasonable

Front 7

Isolated happenings and reasonable care...

Back 7

Spicer v Smee (1946)

- An isolated happening will constitute an actionable nuisance if it emanates from a continuing state of affairs on the defendant’s property
- Taking reasonable care does not remove liability for nuisance, it is the presence of the nuisance

Front 8

The degree of excess of the conduct is tested objectively

Back 8

Matania v National Provincial Bank Ltd (1936)

- Noise carried out by substantial renovations from 8am to 5pm every day
- Held to be excessive

Front 9

Character of a neighbourhood is a factor in establishing nuisance

Back 9

Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

- What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square may not be in Bermondsey
- Character of locality is a factor in determining whether interference is a nuisance

Front 10

Character of neighbourhood only a factor relating to discomfort and inconvenience, not damage

Back 10

Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (1961)

- Character of neighbourhood may affect findings on discomfort and inconvenience but not where physical damage occurs
- On the facts of case, character was not applied to damaging deposits, but was considered in relation to noise and smell complaints

Front 11

Public benefit counts, but the needs of the public don't trump the individual

Back 11

Adams v Ursell (1913)

- Defendant argued that smelly chip shop provided a valuable benefit to the public
- Courts consistently take the view that the interest of the public do not deprive an individual of private rights

Front 12

Malice can make a reasonable activity be a nuisance

Back 12

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)

- Claimant breeding silver foxes but vixens will not breed if disturbed by unusual noises
- Defendant deliberately fired guns on his boundary, as near to breeding pens as possible
- Malice is a factor which can make a reasonable activity an unreasonable one

Front 13

Nasty neighbour who hated music lessons

Back 13

Christie v Davey(1893)

- C had been giving music lessons in his semi-detached house for several years
- D, irritated by the noise, banged on the walls, shouted, blew whistles and beat tin trays with the malicious intention of annoying his neighbour and spoiling the music lessons
- An injunction was granted to restrain the D's behaviour

Front 14

Abnormal sensitivity does not lower the nuisance bar

Back 14

Robinson v Kilvert (1889)

- D let a floor of building to paper merchant
- For own commercial reasons had to heat the cellar area underneath, which dried tenant’s paper, reducing its value as sold by weight
- Held that because this fact was not known at time of let or common knowledge, landlord was not liable in private nuisance

Similar to egg-shell skull rule – once the tort sticks, you can recover more extensively if abnormally damaged due to increased sensitivity

Front 15

Abnormal sensitivity doesn't matter if nuisance would exist for normal sensitivity

Back 15

McKinnon Industries v Walker (1951)

- C grew sensitive orchids
- D’s business emitted fumes damaging to the orchids and would also damage ordinary, more robust plants
- Therefore nuisance was actionable. Sensitivity relates to remedy, not for establishing tort

Front 16

Who can sue in nuisance?

Back 16

Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)

- To sue, C must have the right to exclusive possession of the land
- Owner occupier is in best possession but a tenant also has exclusive possession right
- Hunter restricts claims to freeholders and tenants with a lease

Front 17

You cannot sue in nuisance as guest of legal owner, even if you are a spouse

Back 17

Malone v Laskey (1907)

- Cannot bring a claim as guest of legal owner, even if you are spouse

Front 18

Additional award under Article not needed to provide "just satisfaction"

Back 18

Dobson v Thames Water Utilities (2009)

- Considered whether, as a public body, TWU owed an additional sum after nuisance as “just satisfaction” for infringing Article 8 to a person who lived in a household but had no proprietary interest
- Found that usually the additional award would not be necessary

Front 19

You are liable for a nuisance created by another if you adopt or continue it

Back 19

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)

- A council, as an act of trespass, added an unguarded culvert to a ditch that was the property of a college
- The culvert became blocked because no grate was fitted to guard the entrance and a neighbours land was flooded causing serious damage
- Because three years had passed since the trespass, they were held to have adopted and continued the nuisance
- You adopt a nuisance if you make use of the thing constituting a nuisance
- You continue a nuisance if you know or ought reasonable to know of it and fail to take reasonable steps to get rid of it, allowing for financial resources

Front 20

Same approach for visitors as in Sedleigh-Denfield

Back 20

Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire CC (1999)

- Same approach taken to visitors as in Sedleigh-Denfield

Front 21

Same approach taken to predecessors in title as in Sedleigh-Denfield

Back 21

St Anne’s Well Brewery Co v Roberts (1928)

- Same approach taken to predecessors in title as in Sedleigh-Denfield

Front 22

Same approach taken to natural events as in Sedleigh-Denfield

Back 22

Leakay v National Trust (1980)

- Same approach taken to natural events as in Sedleigh-Denfield

Front 23

Landlord can be liable for nuisance if it is inevitable result of the let

Back 23

Tetley v Chitty (1986)

- Council let land to a go-kart racing club, which meant there was a noise nuisance
- The court found the nuisance an inevitable consequence and held the landlord liable

Front 24

Types of damage recoverable in nuisance

Back 24

Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)

- Physical harm to land and buildings is recoverable
- It is a tort against land, but enjoyment of land’s amenity is also included even if not consequent on damage to the property itself
- Personal injury is not covered
- Personal belongings is more likely to be covered by Negligence

Front 25

Remoteness test for causation in tort of nuisance

Back 25

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994)

- The Wagon Mound (no2) test is the remoteness test for causation, based on foreseeability
- The damage done must be of a type foreseeable to the claimant at the time of the acts or omissions constituting the nuisance

Front 26

It is not a defence that claimant has "come to the nuisance"

Back 26

Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

- A doctor moved to a place where a confectioner had been operating industrial pestles and mortars
- When he established a consulting room, his practice was disturbed
- Held that just because he had “come to the nuisance”, this was not a defence

Front 27

Statutory authority defence case

Back 27

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining (1981)

- The authorisation by an Act of Parliament means that inevitable effects of the construction, including nuisances, are not actionable

Front 28

Case for "Acts of God or nature" defence

Back 28

Wringe v Cohen (1940)

- If nuisance occurs due to “secret and unobservable process of nature” (ie subsidence), D will not be liable unless he adopts or continues the nuisance

Front 29

The mere holding of planning permission is not a defence to the tort of nuisance

Back 29

Wheeler v Saunders (1995)

- Farmer got permission for pig unit but holiday cottage owners complained of nuisance
- Having planning permission no defence, only Parliament can take away private rights such as suing in nuisance

Front 30

Planning permission can change the character of a neighbourhood, and therefore indirectly what is a nuisance

Back 30

Gillingham BC v Medway Docks Co Ltd (1992)

- Planning permission can change the character of a neighbourhood, and therefore affect what is a lawful interference

Front 31

Public benefit of established nuisance prevented injunction from being granted

Back 31

Miller v Jackson (1977)

- Couple bought house built by the boundary of a cricket pitch and suffered nuisance of balls being hit into the garden
- Sought injunction against cricket being played
- Held that while it was a nuisance, the public benefit of the games prevented an injunction being granted

Front 32

Injunction that sought to strike a compromise between public benefit and private rights

Back 32

Kennaway v Thompson (1981)

- Motor boat racing on a lake next to house was established as a nuisance
- Injunction granted to limit but not stop racing, and limit the noise level of boats on the water

Front 33

Working rule for damages in lieu to be awarded

Back 33

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co (1895)

- If the injury to C’s legal rights is small
- It is capable of being estimated in money
- Can be adequately compensated by a small money payment
- It would be oppressive to defendant to grant an injunction

Front 34

Rule for abatement of nuisance

Back 34

Lemmon v Webb (1895)

- Victim must normally give prior notice unless in an emergency or where the nuisance can be abated without entering the wrongdoer’s land

Front 35

Branches are the property of tree owner

Back 35

Mills v Brooker (1919)

- “Branches are the property of the tree owner and should be offered back unconverted”

Front 36

Case mentioning air space in trespass to land

Back 36

Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd (1977)

- C objected to flight over country estate to take single aerial photograph
- Held that right to airspace was limited to such height as is necessary to enjoy property in all the ways to which it is put
- D flew hundreds of feet above the ground, and also complied with Civil Aviation laws

Front 37

Successful trespass case for sign hanging over land

Back 37

Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co Ltd (1957)

sign sticking over land

Front 38

Successful trespass case for cranes swinging over land

Back 38

- Anchor Brewhouse Developments Ltd v Berkeley House (Docklands Developments) Ltd (1987)

cranes swinging over land

Front 39

Being thrown onto land does not count as trespassing

Back 39

Smith v Stone (1647)

- Being thrown onto someone’s land does not count as trespassing

Front 40

Accidental straying is trespassing

Back 40

Basely v Clarkson (1681)

- You do trespass if you accidentally stray onto your neighbour’s land

Front 41

Rare case of negligent trespass (unintentional action)

Back 41

League Against Cruel Sports v Scott (1986) (High Court)

- Landowner owned land for sanctuary for wild animals but local hunt trespassed
- Held that a trespass can exceptionally be committed negligently
- Master of hounds liable for trespass if he releases dogs knowing there is a real risk they may cross prohibited land – liable if he intended them to enter or if they enter by his failure to control them

Front 42

Licensee held to have exclusive possession in relation to crops

Back 42

Monsanto plc v Tilly (2000)

- Licensee found to have exclusive possession in relation to crops being grown on land belonging to third party

Generally a person who merely has a right to use land rather than possession cannot use the law of trespass

Front 43

Squatters can have the right of possession

Back 43

Delaney v TP Smith (1946)
- Squatters have the right of possession
- Can use trespass against anyone other than those with a better right to possession, ie legal owner or earlier trespassers