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;
43 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Two limbs of private nuisance:
|
Read v Lyons & Co Ltd (1945)
Adopted above definition above, claimant must show: - There is an interference with C’s use and enjoyment of land or some right over it - The interference is unlawful |
|
Three types of interference...
|
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) (HL)
Three types of interference within private nuisance - encroachment on neighbour’s land - direct physical injury to neighbour’s land - interference with quiet enjoyment of land last of these is very broad and wide ranging, ie smells, dust, vibration, loss of light Courts slower to find nuisance where loss of amenity is concerned |
|
Interference has to interfere with more than "dainty modes" of living...
|
Walter v Selfe (1851)
Interference has to materially interfere with “ordinary comfort”, not elegant or dainty modes of living” |
|
Loss of prospect is not an actionable interference....
|
Aldred’s Case (1610)
- Loss of prospect (a view) from your home is not an actionable interference |
|
Presence of a building disrupting TV is not actionable in nuisance
|
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) (HL)
The mere presence of a building which interferes with television reception is not actionable in private nuisance |
|
Lawful use is close to reasonable usage a particular society...
|
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)
- No precise formula balancing right to be free on own land against right of neighbour against interference - Useful test is what is reasonable usage according to ordinary usages of mankind in a particular society It will always be a question of fact whether interference is unreasonable |
|
Isolated happenings and reasonable care...
|
Spicer v Smee (1946)
- An isolated happening will constitute an actionable nuisance if it emanates from a continuing state of affairs on the defendant’s property - Taking reasonable care does not remove liability for nuisance, it is the presence of the nuisance |
|
The degree of excess of the conduct is tested objectively
|
Matania v National Provincial Bank Ltd (1936)
- Noise carried out by substantial renovations from 8am to 5pm every day - Held to be excessive |
|
Character of a neighbourhood is a factor in establishing nuisance
|
Sturges v Bridgman (1879)
- What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square may not be in Bermondsey - Character of locality is a factor in determining whether interference is a nuisance |
|
Character of neighbourhood only a factor relating to discomfort and inconvenience, not damage
|
Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (1961)
- Character of neighbourhood may affect findings on discomfort and inconvenience but not where physical damage occurs - On the facts of case, character was not applied to damaging deposits, but was considered in relation to noise and smell complaints |
|
Public benefit counts, but the needs of the public don't trump the individual
|
Adams v Ursell (1913)
- Defendant argued that smelly chip shop provided a valuable benefit to the public - Courts consistently take the view that the interest of the public do not deprive an individual of private rights |
|
Malice can make a reasonable activity be a nuisance
|
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)
- Claimant breeding silver foxes but vixens will not breed if disturbed by unusual noises - Defendant deliberately fired guns on his boundary, as near to breeding pens as possible - Malice is a factor which can make a reasonable activity an unreasonable one |
|
Nasty neighbour who hated music lessons
|
Christie v Davey(1893)
- C had been giving music lessons in his semi-detached house for several years - D, irritated by the noise, banged on the walls, shouted, blew whistles and beat tin trays with the malicious intention of annoying his neighbour and spoiling the music lessons - An injunction was granted to restrain the D's behaviour |
|
Abnormal sensitivity does not lower the nuisance bar
|
Robinson v Kilvert (1889)
- D let a floor of building to paper merchant - For own commercial reasons had to heat the cellar area underneath, which dried tenant’s paper, reducing its value as sold by weight - Held that because this fact was not known at time of let or common knowledge, landlord was not liable in private nuisance Similar to egg-shell skull rule – once the tort sticks, you can recover more extensively if abnormally damaged due to increased sensitivity |
|
Abnormal sensitivity doesn't matter if nuisance would exist for normal sensitivity
|
McKinnon Industries v Walker (1951)
- C grew sensitive orchids - D’s business emitted fumes damaging to the orchids and would also damage ordinary, more robust plants - Therefore nuisance was actionable. Sensitivity relates to remedy, not for establishing tort |
|
Who can sue in nuisance?
|
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
- To sue, C must have the right to exclusive possession of the land - Owner occupier is in best possession but a tenant also has exclusive possession right - Hunter restricts claims to freeholders and tenants with a lease |
|
You cannot sue in nuisance as guest of legal owner, even if you are a spouse
|
Malone v Laskey (1907)
- Cannot bring a claim as guest of legal owner, even if you are spouse |
|
Additional award under Article not needed to provide "just satisfaction"
|
Dobson v Thames Water Utilities (2009)
- Considered whether, as a public body, TWU owed an additional sum after nuisance as “just satisfaction” for infringing Article 8 to a person who lived in a household but had no proprietary interest - Found that usually the additional award would not be necessary |
|
You are liable for a nuisance created by another if you adopt or continue it
|
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)
- A council, as an act of trespass, added an unguarded culvert to a ditch that was the property of a college - The culvert became blocked because no grate was fitted to guard the entrance and a neighbours land was flooded causing serious damage - Because three years had passed since the trespass, they were held to have adopted and continued the nuisance - You adopt a nuisance if you make use of the thing constituting a nuisance - You continue a nuisance if you know or ought reasonable to know of it and fail to take reasonable steps to get rid of it, allowing for financial resources |
|
Same approach for visitors as in Sedleigh-Denfield
|
Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire CC (1999)
- Same approach taken to visitors as in Sedleigh-Denfield |
|
Same approach taken to predecessors in title as in Sedleigh-Denfield
|
St Anne’s Well Brewery Co v Roberts (1928)
- Same approach taken to predecessors in title as in Sedleigh-Denfield |
|
Same approach taken to natural events as in Sedleigh-Denfield
|
Leakay v National Trust (1980)
- Same approach taken to natural events as in Sedleigh-Denfield |
|
Landlord can be liable for nuisance if it is inevitable result of the let
|
Tetley v Chitty (1986)
- Council let land to a go-kart racing club, which meant there was a noise nuisance - The court found the nuisance an inevitable consequence and held the landlord liable |
|
Types of damage recoverable in nuisance
|
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
- Physical harm to land and buildings is recoverable - It is a tort against land, but enjoyment of land’s amenity is also included even if not consequent on damage to the property itself - Personal injury is not covered - Personal belongings is more likely to be covered by Negligence |
|
Remoteness test for causation in tort of nuisance
|
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994)
- The Wagon Mound (no2) test is the remoteness test for causation, based on foreseeability - The damage done must be of a type foreseeable to the claimant at the time of the acts or omissions constituting the nuisance |
|
It is not a defence that claimant has "come to the nuisance"
|
Sturges v Bridgman (1879)
- A doctor moved to a place where a confectioner had been operating industrial pestles and mortars - When he established a consulting room, his practice was disturbed - Held that just because he had “come to the nuisance”, this was not a defence |
|
Statutory authority defence case
|
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining (1981)
- The authorisation by an Act of Parliament means that inevitable effects of the construction, including nuisances, are not actionable |
|
Case for "Acts of God or nature" defence
|
Wringe v Cohen (1940)
- If nuisance occurs due to “secret and unobservable process of nature” (ie subsidence), D will not be liable unless he adopts or continues the nuisance |
|
The mere holding of planning permission is not a defence to the tort of nuisance
|
Wheeler v Saunders (1995)
- Farmer got permission for pig unit but holiday cottage owners complained of nuisance - Having planning permission no defence, only Parliament can take away private rights such as suing in nuisance |
|
Planning permission can change the character of a neighbourhood, and therefore indirectly what is a nuisance
|
Gillingham BC v Medway Docks Co Ltd (1992)
- Planning permission can change the character of a neighbourhood, and therefore affect what is a lawful interference |
|
Public benefit of established nuisance prevented injunction from being granted
|
Miller v Jackson (1977)
- Couple bought house built by the boundary of a cricket pitch and suffered nuisance of balls being hit into the garden - Sought injunction against cricket being played - Held that while it was a nuisance, the public benefit of the games prevented an injunction being granted |
|
Injunction that sought to strike a compromise between public benefit and private rights
|
Kennaway v Thompson (1981)
- Motor boat racing on a lake next to house was established as a nuisance - Injunction granted to limit but not stop racing, and limit the noise level of boats on the water |
|
Working rule for damages in lieu to be awarded
|
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co (1895)
- If the injury to C’s legal rights is small - It is capable of being estimated in money - Can be adequately compensated by a small money payment - It would be oppressive to defendant to grant an injunction |
|
Rule for abatement of nuisance
|
Lemmon v Webb (1895)
- Victim must normally give prior notice unless in an emergency or where the nuisance can be abated without entering the wrongdoer’s land |
|
Branches are the property of tree owner
|
Mills v Brooker (1919)
- “Branches are the property of the tree owner and should be offered back unconverted” |
|
Case mentioning air space in trespass to land
|
Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd (1977)
- C objected to flight over country estate to take single aerial photograph - Held that right to airspace was limited to such height as is necessary to enjoy property in all the ways to which it is put - D flew hundreds of feet above the ground, and also complied with Civil Aviation laws |
|
Successful trespass case for sign hanging over land
|
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co Ltd (1957)
sign sticking over land |
|
Successful trespass case for cranes swinging over land
|
- Anchor Brewhouse Developments Ltd v Berkeley House (Docklands Developments) Ltd (1987)
cranes swinging over land |
|
Being thrown onto land does not count as trespassing
|
Smith v Stone (1647)
- Being thrown onto someone’s land does not count as trespassing |
|
Accidental straying is trespassing
|
Basely v Clarkson (1681)
- You do trespass if you accidentally stray onto your neighbour’s land |
|
Rare case of negligent trespass (unintentional action)
|
League Against Cruel Sports v Scott (1986) (High Court)
- Landowner owned land for sanctuary for wild animals but local hunt trespassed - Held that a trespass can exceptionally be committed negligently - Master of hounds liable for trespass if he releases dogs knowing there is a real risk they may cross prohibited land – liable if he intended them to enter or if they enter by his failure to control them |
|
Licensee held to have exclusive possession in relation to crops
|
Monsanto plc v Tilly (2000)
- Licensee found to have exclusive possession in relation to crops being grown on land belonging to third party Generally a person who merely has a right to use land rather than possession cannot use the law of trespass |
|
Squatters can have the right of possession
|
Delaney v TP Smith (1946)
- Squatters have the right of possession - Can use trespass against anyone other than those with a better right to possession, ie legal owner or earlier trespassers |