Nuisance

Front 1

Intro

Back 1

C may have an action in the tort of private nuisance, defined as “an unlawful, indirect interference with another person’s use or enjoyment of land, or their rights over it”.

Front 2

Proprietary interest

Back 2

Cmust have a proprietary interest in the land affected, as in Hunter v Canary Wharf, which they do because they [eg. are the owner OR tenant of the house].

Front 3

Guest/family member

Back 3

IF RELEVANT: A guest or family member cannot claim as they do not have a proprietary interest.

Front 4

Interference

Back 4

Dneed not cause the interference, as in Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan, but must be the occupier of the land where it occurs, either as the owner as in Tetley v Chitty, or by having control or possession of the land.

Front 5

Examples of nuisance

Back 5

Examples of what amounts to a nuisance are: heat/light/dust (Halsey v Esso Petroleum), noise and vibrations (Sturges v Bridgman), noisy neighbours (Coventry v Lawrence), smells (Adams v Ursell), hot air (Robinson v Kilvert), ‘lowering the tone’ of an area (Laws v Florinplace), TV reception (Hunter v Canary Wharf), oily smuts/soot/smoke/fumes (St Helens Smelting v Tipping), balls (Miller v Jackson), blocked culvert/pipe (Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan) and natural causes such as a landslide or cliff subsidence where the defendant knew of the hazard and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it (Leakey v National Trust, Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC).

Front 6

Physical damage

Back 6

Causing physical damage is a ‘prima facie’ nuisance, as in Halsey v Esso Petroleum. [IF RELEVANT: Here, physical damage was caused because.

Front 7

Competing interestd

Back 7

The court will consider the competing interests of C and D, and will consider several FACTORS when deciding whether D’s interference is UNREASONABLE and therefore unlawful.

Front 8

Locality

Back 8

The LOCALITY i.e. character of the area, can make an interference unreasonable. As stated by Thesiger LJ in Sturges v Bridgman, “what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”. In Laws v Florinplace a sex shop was unreasonable in a residential area and in Kennaway v Thompson speedboat races were unreasonable in a quiet lake area.

Front 9

Social utility

Back 9

SOCIAL UTILITY may make an interference more reasonable, where the activity benefits the public, as with a cricket club in Miller v Jackson, although in Adams v Ursell a fish and chip shop did not have social utility. It will not prevent liability, but could be taken into account when deciding the remedy.

Front 10

Duration

Back 10

The DURATION of the interference must usually be regular and ongoing to be unreasonable, as in De Keyser’s Hotel v Spicer Bros, although even a 20 minute firework display was held to be a nuisance in Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks.

Front 11

Malice

Back 11

MALICE shown by the defendant when deliberately disturbing the claimant will make the interference unreasonable, as in Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett.

Front 12

PARTICULAR SENSITIVITY of the claimant, where the INTERFERENCE WAS UNFORESEEABLE, will make the interference more reasonable, as in Network Rail v Morris.

Back 12

Particular sensitivity

Front 13

Seriousness

Back 13

The SERIOUSNESS of the interference will be considered. If it is very serious or severe, it is more likely to be unreasonable. In Miller v Jackson the interference of the cricket balls was infrequent, so less serious.

Front 14

Statutory authority

Back 14

STATUTORY AUTHORITY may be a defence, where the interference is authorised by a law/statute, as in Allen v Gulf Oil Refining. Local authority planning permission can be taken into account, but cannot provide an absolute defence, as in Coventry v Lawrence.

Front 15

Prescription

Back 15

PRESCRIPTION may be a defence, where the nuisance has been “uniformly created” by the defendant as an “actionable nuisance” for the specific claimant for over 20 years, as in Sturges v Bridgman, and in Coventry v Lawrence.

Front 16

Moved to the nuisance

Back 16

It is no defence to say that the claimant ‘moved to the nuisance’, as in Miller v Jackson, unless the claimant changes the use of their property so that it is basically their own fault.

Front 17

Act of a stranger

Back 17

ACT OF A STRANGER may be a defence, where the interference occurred because of the actions of someone over which the defendant had no control, as in Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan.

Front 18

Conclusion

Back 18

TO CONCLUDE, [eg. it is likely that the court will consider D’s interference be unreasonable and therefore unlawful and C’s action is likely to succeed].

Front 19

Damages

Back 19

DAMAGES may be awarded as in Miller v Jackson. In Coventry v Lawrence it was held that damages should now be awarded in preference to an injunction, especially where local authority planning permission has been granted, or as a public policy issue where there is a public benefit, for example the activity provides jobs, or has social utility as a sporting venue.

Front 20

Injunction

Back 20

An INJUNCTION may be ordered. A PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION prevents D from continuing with the use of land completely, or a PARTIAL INJUNCTION limits part of the activity or the timing of it, as in Kennaway v Thompson.

Front 21

Human rights

Back 21

The HUMAN RIGHTS of the claimant will be considered if there is a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to a private family life, as in Marcic v Thames Water.