Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • 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

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/44

Click to flip

44 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Hunter v Canary Wharf
must have interest in land. + Nuisance does not protect recreational facilities, eg view, TV& radio reception
definition of Nuisance, Read v Lyons
unlawful activity that is harmful or noxious and interferes with another person's rights, use or enjoyment of their land
Who can be sued? 1. The Creator
the occupier
Who can be sued? 2. The occupier.
+ Occupier IS liable for nuisance caused by acts of nature which he could reasonably prevent. Earth capsized onto plaintiff's land (natural causes), but National trust did nothing to prevent it hence liable.
Leakey v National Trust
An exceptional case where occupier was liable for independent contractors as it was forseeable that they will cause nuisance
Matania v National Provincial Bank
Occupier is not liable for nuisance acaused by trespassers unless he acquiesces (gypsies on council land next to posh car dealer)
Page Motors v Epsom
Occupier is not liable for nuisance caused by acts of nature which he could not have reasonably prevented. cf Leakey v National Trust
Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough
Landlords generally not liable unless it was forseeable that tenant would cause nuisance (go-cart club)
Tetley v Chitty
Damage must be established by claimant and recovery will be made to the extent the damage was reasonably forseeable.
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties
not possible to claim for PI in private nuisance
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Elements of Nuisance: 2. Damage.
types of damage in private nuisance: physical damage & sensible pesonal discomfort (SPD). no diminution of value of land in the latter cas
St Helens v Tipping
Elements of Nuisance: 1. Indirect Interference (with enjoyment or use of land). aerial photos
Bernstein v Skyviews
Factors of unreasonable interference: Duration
6 times hit by ball over 30 years
Bolton v Stone
Factors of unreasonable interference: Duration
can be short if fire
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks
Factors of unreasonable interference: Locality (nuisance in belgrave sq / not in bermondsey). Sex shop in Pimlico.
Laws v Florinplace
Locality will not be considered when physical damage is concerned!!!
St Helens v Tipping
Factors of unreasonable interference: Locality. planning permit does not authorise nuisance: pig farming case
Wheeler v Saunders
planning permission can change the character of an area from residential to industrial so what used to be nuisance is no longer nuisance. or vice versa.
Gillingham v Medway
Public benefit does not authorise nuisance. Chip shop in a working class area was a nuisance.
Adams v Ursell
Public benefit will affect remedies (injunction full or partial/ order for compensation only)
Miller v Jackson
Factors of unreasonable interference: Abnormal Sensitivity. sensitive brown paper. No nuisance if hypothetical reasonable claimant would not have been affected - otherwise full extent of damage recoverable
Robinson v Kilvert
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
Factors of unreasonable interference: Malice is unreasonable. neighbour shooting in the air to prevent foxes from breeding.
Moving into Nuisance: not a valid defence
the village cricket case
Miller v Jackson
Defence: 20 years prescription. Confectionary existed for over 20 yrs and claimant doctor claimed nuisance only after extension of his premises. Valid defence
Sturges v Bridgeman
strict liability where the defendant brought something unnatural (likely to do mischief) onto its land and it escaped. An isolated incedent is enough
Rylands v Fletcher
Rylands case: no element of escape, no liability: claimant injured by explosion on the defendant's land
Read v Lyons
public nuisance claimant must have suffered special damage over anb above others - dredging costs
Tate v Lyle v GLC
any nuisance is public which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of her majesty's subjects, AG v PYA Quarries
public nuisance definition
how many is class? q of fact for the court. 538 individuals are not class (racial hatred letters)
r v rimmington
picketing on the highway
Thomas v NUM
laimant in public nuisance: no need to have interest in land but must suffer over and above the class: damage includes PI: one-off events sufficient:
public nuisance
pure economic loss recoverable in public nuisance
Rose v Miles
rylands - for his own purposes anything likely to do mischief (acid)
Rainham v Belvedere Fish Guano
escapes (in this case no escape as claimant injured on def's land; plus PI not recoverable and for Rylands, munitions are not an an natural use of land in wartime)
Read v Lyons
Rickards v Lothian
rylands (non-natural use) no liability as ordinary and proper use of land
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
Defence to Rylands: act or default of the claimant (escape caused by actions of the claimant
Dunn v Birmingham Canal
Charing cross Electricity v Hydraulic
Defence to Rylands: statutory authority
Defence to Rylands: act of a stranger (will operate if no negligence on the part of the defendant)
Defence to Rylands: act of a Hale v Jennings Bros
Public Nuisance: "class of HM subjects" can be a small number of people
AG v Hastings
Kennaway v Thompson
Partial injunction in private nuisance. water sports club
music teacher v angry neighbour. the neighbour's malice tipped the scales in claimant's favour. neighbours counterclaim was not allowed. cf bradford v pickles where neighbour drained his land on purpose to prevent water from his neighbours site. seemingly bad intentions were not taken into account
Christie v Davey
-defendant BRINGS onto his land and accumulates (rylands+, giles v walker -);
-something likely to do MISCHIEF (classic case - chemicals (Cambridge water+);
- if it ESCAPEs (Read v Lyons -);
- NON-natural user (added by HL in Rylands; Read v Lyons -, Transco -);
-(no fault necessary but - FORSEEABLE DAMAGE (Cambridge water-)
rylands elements
rylands claim requires interest in land; no pi is recoverable; subset of private nuisance
Transco v Stockport
Defence of Statutory Authority
Allen v Gulf Oil