Private Nuisance

Front 1

Bright

Back 1

Why should a landowner be held legally responsible for the wrongs of a trouble maker commits against his neighbour

Parameters of nuisance law are unclear and malleable

Unless the property owner owes a special responsibility to protect the victim from harm, he should be liable for the wrongful behaviour of others on his land only where he is in some manner responsible for it.

The reason why a public body would be required to act is not because it happens to be the owner of property from which the nuisance emanates...but because it is charged with responsibility for acting in the interests of the community and protecting the rights of individuals.

Front 2

Definition of private nuisance

Back 2

Any act or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with C's land or C's use or enjoyment of the land.

Front 3

Public nuisance

Back 3

Primarily a crime of great breadth. Damages are recoverable in tort where C has suffered 'serious' damage e.g. personal injury or economic loss

Front 4

What can constitute private nuisance

Back 4

Physical damage, interference with comfort and convenience (intangible damage) or harassment (though this is controversial particular as korandashi decision was disapproved of by HL in Hunter v Canary Wharf

Front 5

St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping

Back 5

Where damage is material/physical courts are likely to grant C a remedy. Where c's claim concerns comfort and convenience, courts engage in a balancing act of competing land uses.

Front 6

Walter v Selfe

Back 6

Alleged interferences with amenity are assessed by reference to plain and simple notions among English people

Front 7

Sturgess v Bridgman (locality)

Back 7

'What would be a nuisance in Belgrave would not be so in Bermondsey' Locality is important

Front 8

Gillingham BC v Medway Dock (locality)

Back 8

Planning authority granted planning permission for commercial use because they said redevelopment in the area was necessary. As a result, the level of amenity enjoyed by residents was reduced

Front 9

Barr v Biffa Waste Management Services

Back 9

D operated a landfill into which was tipped oderous waste. The environment agency had granted D a waste permit but C's (residents) complained of the smell etc. At trial the judge said that the C's could not establish an unreasonable use of the land because they did not allege that D had reached the permit. On appeal C were successful. The correct test was: would a normal person have found it reaosnable to put up with the effect of D's activities?

Front 10

Considerations for balancing an interference with amenity

Back 10

levels of interference

abnormal sensitivity

public benefit

malice

Front 11

Robinson v Kilvert (abnormal sensitivity)

Back 11

C's premises were situated above Ds. Heat generated in D's house rose into C's premises and damaged sensitive paper. CA said D was not liable because what was at stake was unusually sensitive (the same reasoning applies to abnormally sensitive people)

Front 12

Matania (level of interference)

Back 12

Temporary interference may if substantial constitute an actionable nuisance

Front 13

British Celanese (level of interference)

Back 13

An isolated occurrence can give rise to an actionable nuisance.

Front 14

Miller v Jackson (public benefit)

Back 14

Claimant moved into new property which was side by side with a cricket ground. The balls kept breaking her windows and she felt unsafe. Injunctive relief was refused and damages were given instead (this was because the CA considered public benefit of allowing the game to continue being played)

Front 15

Christie v Davey (malice)

Back 15

PArties lived in adjoining semi-detached houses. D was annoyed by music lessons given by C. D in retaliation banged on party-walls, beat trays and shouted. Noises made by D were not of a legitimate kind and D was held liable. Permanent injunction was imposed on C so she could only give lessons at certain hours

Front 16

Hollywood Silver Fox Farms (malice)

Back 16

D fired gun with aim of upsetting C's (sensitive) silver foxes. This caused animals to abort and devour their young. D held liable for acting maliciously cf. abnormal sensitivity.

Front 17

Bradford Corporation v Pickles (intentional interference)

Back 17

D reduced water supply to C's land with intention to prompt C to purchase his land at a suitably high price. HL said D's conduct was lawful

Front 18

Overseas Tankships and Cambridge Water (remoteness)

Back 18

is the harm of a reasonably foreseeable type?

Front 19

Hunter v Canary Wharf (who can sue)

Back 19

Claimant must have a right in or over the affected land.

Front 20

Who can be sued

Back 20

The person causing the nuisance, the occupier of the land or the occupier's landlord

Front 21

Smith v Scott (who can be sued)

Back 21

Nuisance was caused by tenants. The landlord was not held liable, this was because he had put in a covenant causing the family were not to create a private nuisance

Front 22

Coventry v Lawrence (who can be sued)

Back 22

Landlords will be held liable for a private nuisance created by their tenants where they have authorised the interference or directly participated in it.

Front 23

Standard of liability

Back 23

material damage invokes essentially strict liability whereas amenity interference involves a balancing of competing interests (the law is tempered).