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;
16 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Hunter v Canary Wharf |
Nuisance is a tort that protects land |
|
|
Rylands v Fletcher |
- a tort that protects land - imposes liability for the escape of a 'dangerous thing' - increased statutory intervention to regulate dangerous activity makes this tort less applicable - significant overlap with nuisance |
|
|
'We think that the rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings onto his land and collects there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape' |
Blackburn J in Rylands v Fletcher |
|
|
The four key elements of Rylands |
1 - the defendant must have brought onto their land or allowed an accumulation of something likely to do mischief if it escapes 2 - Escape must be of a 'dangerous thing (Read v Lyons) 3 - Foreseeability of damage (Cambridge Water Co; Transco plc v Stockport) 4 - The defendant must have engaged in 'non-natural' use of the land (Transco; Cambridge Water) |
|
|
The tort is 'a remedy for damage to land or interests in land... damages for personal injuries are not recoverable under the rule' |
Rylands (discussed in Transco v Stockport) |
|
|
Defences to Rylands |
- Common benefit (volenti) - Necessity - Act of a Stranger (Rickards v Lothian) - Act of God - Statutory Authority |
|
|
Unlawful Interference in Nuisance |
At the heart of the matter is the reasonableness or otherwise of the interference - Locality (does not apply for physical damage St Helens's Smelting Co v Tipping) - Sensitivity of the Claimant (Robinson v Klivert) - Malice (Christie v Davey) - Duration/ extent of the interference (Halsey v Esso) |
|
|
Sensitivity of the claimant (Nuisance)
|
Robinson v Klivert
|
|
|
Malice of Nuisance
|
Christie v Davey
|
|
|
Time/ Drution of Nuisance
|
Halsey v Esso |
|
|
Locality of Nuisance |
Not a 'true defence' (Coventry v Lawrence) - planning permission does not prevent nuisance St Helens's Smelting Co v Tipping |
|
|
Hunter v Canary Wharf |
- Nuisance protects land - Only those with a legal title in land can bring an action in nuisance - HRA issues |
|
|
Remedies for Nuisance |
Abatement - Burton v Winters Damages for past damages - Hunter v Canary Wharf Injunction - Regan v Paul Properties Damages in lieu of an injunction - Dennis v MoD: fighter jets training |
|
|
Foreseeability of damage (Rylands) |
Cambridge Water - the chemical stored on the land was known to be poisonous Transco plc v Stockport - not forseeable that water itself would cause damage |
|
|
Escape must be of a 'dangerous thing |
Read v Lyons - |
|
|
The defendant must have engaged in 'non-natural' use of the land |
Transco - supply of domestic water is not 'non-natural' use of land Cambridge Water - tank of chemicals stored on the premises of a leather tanning firm is 'non-natural' |
