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
|
Origin |
Def > the unlawful, indirect interference with another person’s use or enjoyment of land in which they have an interest (Winfield) ______________________________________________ The claimant has an interest in the land affected by the nuisance Malone v Laskey Hunter v Canary Wharf ______________________________________________ Potential D’s include: • The occupier of the land – Tetley v Chitty • The creator of the nuisance – Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum • Independent contractors • Landlords |
|
|
Stage 1 |
1. There has been an unreasonable use of land. LOCALITY Lord Justice Thesiger > ‘What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’ ~ Sturges v Bridgman 1879 Laws v Florinplace Ltd St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping Murdoch v Glacier Metal Co Ltd ______________________________________________ DURATION Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd ______________________________________________ MALICE Christie v Davey 1893 Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet 1936 ______________________________________________ SENSITIVITY Robinson v Kilvert 1889 McKinnon Industries v Walker 1951 |
|
|
Stage 2 |
2. Leading to an indirect interference with the enjoyment of land Examples of indirect interference: smoke, effluvia, noise, fires and vibrations. Hunter v Canary Wharf |
|
|
Stage 3 |
3. This has caused damage to the claimant Ranging from discomfort to damage to the claimant’s land St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather |
|
|
Defences |
1. Prescription 2. Moving to the nuisance 3. Statutory Authority |
|
|
Defence 1 |
1) Prescription Defendant has earned the right to carry on the nuisance because: i. Activity has been going on for 20 years or more and the claimant knew about it but did nothing ii. Activity must also have been a nuisance for the same length of time Sturges v Bridgman 1879 Coventry v Lawrence 2014 > CoA confirmed defence only applied to activity which had been an actionable nuisance for at least 20 years |
|
|
Defence 2 |
2) Moving to the nuisance D may argue that the C is only suffering the nuisance as they have moved: • closer to the problem (Sturges v Bridgman) • into the area (Miller v Jackson) there was no issue previously. NOTE: This argument will NOT give a defence to the defendant. |
|
|
Defence 3 |
3) Statutory authority • It’s possible that if a statute has authorised something to be done > thing cannot become a nuisance Allen v Gulf Oil Refining 1981 • If a statute provides only possible remedy > action in nuisance may not be possible as an alternative Marcic v Thames Water PLC 2003 • Local Authority planning permission can act in the same way >lawful justification for a nuisance Gillingham BC v Medway Dock Co 1993 ______________________________________________ Not available if the planning permission does not change the character of the neighbourhood Wheeler v Saunders 1996 Confirmed in Watson v Croft Promo-Sport 2009 > re-opening of a race track not held to change the character of the area & injunction granted limiting use of the track. |
|
|
Remedies |
• Injunction • Abatement • Damages |
