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;
6 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Private nuisance: Substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of private land. Requires some kind of fault and a certain kind of damage, which should not be too remote. |
Hunter v Canary Wharf: 'Private nuisances are of three kinds. They are 1) nuisance by encroachment on a neighbours land, 2) nuisance by direct physical injury to a neighbours land and 3)nuisance by interference with a neighbours quiet enjoyment of his land.' |
|
|
Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan- 'a balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with' Cambridge Water Co- 'principle of give and take as between neighbouring occupiers of land' |
Who can sue? Claimants- Hunter v Canary Wharf- 'an action in private nuisance will only lie at the suit of a person who has a right to the land affected.' Dobson v Thames Water- impact of HRA 1998 A8 ECHR. |
|
|
Who can be sued? Creators, occupiers and landlords- Smith v Scott. Natural nuisances- Leakey v National Trust. |
Elements of the tort-
Substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of private land causing damage. |
|
|
Factors relevant to unreasonableness- Locality , extent, duration and frequency, social utility, practicality of avoiding interference, malice and sensitivity of claimant. |
Locality- Sturges v Bridgman- when considering a nuisance 'in reference to its circumstances.' Extent- Walter v Selfe Duration and frequency- Barr v Biffa: smell was for 5 years. |
|
|
Social utility- if it has a social good it may be allowed. Miller v Jackson- golf club nuisances were allowed as good for community. Practicality of avoiding interference- can you take reasonable steps to avoid? Leakey v National Trust. Malice- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm- more likely to be nuisance. |
Sensitivity of the claimant- Cooke v Forbes- his coconut business was not deemed to be sensitive. If found as sensitive less likely to be nuisance. |
|
|
Remoteness (forgeability of damage)- Cambridge Water Co v East Counties Leather 1994. The damage was not foreseeable so couldn't be held liable. |
. |
