Laws1113 - Final Exam Cases - Nuisance

Front 1

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Back 1

Using your land for ordinary purposes will not make you liable for nuisance.

Front 2

Walter v Selfe

Back 2

A trivial interference cannot be a nuisance.

Front 3

Munro v Southern Dairies

Back 3

The loss of a single night's sleep is not trivial, and sufficient grounds for actionable nuisance.

Front 4

Kennaway v Thompson

Back 4

People must be willing to give and take, and injunctions will frequently take this into account.

Front 5

Clary v Women's College

Back 5

Ordinary usage of land does not constitute an actionable nuisance.

Front 6

Robinson v Kilbert

Back 6

Sensitive use does not constitute grounds for nuisance if non-sensitive use would be unaffected.

Front 7

St Helen's Smelting v Tipping

Back 7

Locality is normally a factor in nuisance, but not when physical damage is suffered.

Front 8

Bolton v Stone

Back 8

A one-off unexpected act does not constitute an actionable nuisance.

Front 9

Miller v Jackson; Dennis v Ministry of Defence

Back 9

In the case of social benefit, judges have the discretion to award damages in lieu of an injunction.

Front 10

Hollywood Fox Farm v Emmet

Back 10

Motive can be relevant if the action is on the boundary of being unreasonable.

Front 11

Campbelltown v Winton

Back 11

"Coming to a nuisance" does not constitute a defense.

Front 12

Foster v Warblington

Back 12

Just being present does not give grounds to sue in nuisance, the occupation must be of a substantial nature.

Front 13

Fennell v Robson Excavations

Back 13

Indirect damage to land is actionable under nuisance if that damage is done via excavation of nearby land.

Front 14

Sedleigh Denfield v OCallaghan

Back 14

"Continuing" a nuisance makes you liable for the nuisance.

Front 15

Goldman v Hargrave

Back 15

Failing to take reasonable precautions makes you liable for the nuisance, if you had knowledge of the nuisance and failed tot take steps to abate it.

Front 16

Montana Hotels v Fasson

Back 16

Adopting a nuisance requires knowledge of the nuisance.

Front 17

Peden v Bortolazzo

Back 17

A landlord cannot be liable for nuisance on the part of their tenants unless they know for certain that the nuisance will result as a consequence of letting out the property.