• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/12

Click to flip

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;

12 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Prescription

little used defence. Where private nuisance continues for 20yrs or more, D may be entitled to claim a prescriptive right to engage in the relevant interference. D must not abuse his or her private right. D must carry on his or her activity in a way that causes the least practicable interference.

Sturgess v Bridgman (prescription)

for over 20 years, D had used noisy machinery. C then built a consulting situated near D's machinery. Prescription failed as a defence because the nuisance began when C's new building was erected.

Statutory Authority

D must show interference with C's right is permitted either by express wording in statute or necessary implication

Allen v Gulf Oil (statutory authority)

In 1965, Gulf Oil secured a private act of parliament. look to purpose of legislation, in its preamble it said 'it is essential that further facilities for the importation of crude oil and petroleum should be made available.' Lacuna in the legislation, acquisition of land was authorised and so was the construction work but there was no express authority for the use of a refinery, HL said the operation of the plant was authorised by necessary implication.

Gillingham BC v Medway Dock (planning permission)

Planning permission was granted; formal naval dockyard was used as a commercial port. Consequently the character of the neighbourhood was changed. But public concerns pushed out the rights of private individuals (the residents)

Wheeler v Saunders (planning permission)

D obtained planning permission to build two housing units for pigs close to C's property. smell reduced C's amenity. trial judge and CA said there was actionable private nuisance. This was not a strategic planning decision concerned with advancing the public interest.

Contributory negligence

may be a defence (trevett v lee)

consent

may be pleaded as a defence, available were C, knowing of the danger to his or her property,h has (by word or deed) shown willingness to accept the risks.

coming to the nuisance

ineffective as a defence

public benefit

not a free-standing defence though may be relevant in amenity causes

Multiple responsibility

it is no defence to argue that nuisance arose from the combined acts of different persons.

trespass

act of trespass does not yield a defence where D knowingly or negligently continues the nuisance (sedleigh-denfield)