GoConqr hat ein neues Design! Sag uns, wie es dir gefällt.

Kostenlos registrieren

Karteikarten

Tort - Nuisance

victorgrotowski Englisch 77 Karten

Karten in diesem Stapel (77)

  1. 1Bamford v Turnleynuisance defined as 'any continuos activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's land or his use or enjoyment of that land'; ie not trivial and last some time
  2. 2Malone v Laskeyinterest in land necessary to sue; wife did not, so could not sue
  3. 3Hunter v Canary Whatfre-establishes principle of interest in land being necessary
  4. 4McKenna v British Aluminiumquestion whether interest in land necessary interferes with HRA 1998, no
  5. 5Dobson v Thames Water Utilityconfirms position of Hunter and restores Bamford
  6. 6Thomas v NUMcreator of nuisance may be used even if they may not be in a position to end the nuisance
  7. 7Leakey v National Trustaware of danger yet no steps taken; occupier sued for mound of earth on land which then fell
  8. 8Matania v National Provincial Bankwhile normally not liable for nuisance of independent contractors, they can if reasonable foreseeable, as here
  9. 9Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghamif nuisance caused by trespasser occupier only liable if continued the nuisance; act of a stranger defence; indirect interference flowing from one land to another; 'what is reasonable within ordinary usage of mankind living in particular society'
  10. 10Goldman v Hargravewhile natural occurring nuisances absolve occupier from liability, here held liable when they knew or ought to have known of the danger and failed to take action
  11. 11Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BCwithin the context of naturally occurring nuisances taking care of them depends on means of occupier; not expected to bankrupt himself
  12. 12Vernon Knight Associates v Cornwall CCwith regards to naturally occurring nuisances, court will consider what is fair, just and reasonable to expect defendant to consider
  13. 13Lippiatt v South GClandlord usually not liable for private nuisance unless created/authorised/knew about it
  14. 14Hussain v Lancaster CCnuisance claim against landlord failed as outside the scope of nuisance claims
  15. 15Tetley v Chittylandlord liable for leasing land to go cart track
  16. 16Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Countries Leatheronly damage that is reasonably foreseeable necessary
  17. 17St Helen's Smelting v Tippingtwo types of damage distinguished: 1) physical damage; 2) sensible performance discomfort (SPD) defined as 'the personal inconvenience and interference with one's enjoyment ... anything that discomposes or injuriously affects the senses or the nerves'
  18. 18Lemmon v Webboverhanging tree branches example of physical damage
  19. 19Kennaway v Thompsontime and duration important factor to consider when establishing unlawful interference
  20. 20Spicer v Smeewhile nuisance has to be continuous, single instances can be nuisances; here fire starting from poor wiring the reason, fire itself was isolated but wiring has been defective for some time
  21. 21British Celanese v AH Huntisolated incidence can create nuisance especially if it is not the first occurrence; here metal foil strips escaping
  22. 22Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworksfire display held to be nuisance which resulted in fire; any event that gives rise to escape of dangerous materials is deemed nuisance
  23. 23Sturges v Bridgmandoctor disturbed by noise; locality for SPD important: 'what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey'
  24. 24ADams v Ursellnuisance in residential area, business could be carried out in a more 'suitable area'
  25. 25Laws v Florinplacelocation of sex shop considered nuisance under SPD
  26. 26Wheeler v JJ Saundersplanning permission will not authorise nuisance
  27. 27Gillingham BC v Medway Dockplanning permission may alter character of area, here residential to industrial; also public authority could initiate public nuisance claim
  28. 28Watson v Croft Promo-Sportexample where planning permission has not altered area
  29. 29Lawrence v Fen Tigerswhile permission did not authorise the nuisance, planning permission followed by carrying out of the permitted activity over time may have effect of changing character of the locality
  30. 30Robinson v Kilvertspecial paper abnormally sensitive and if normal paper had been used by ordinary occupier would have been ok
  31. 31McKinnon Industries v Walkerhypothetical reasonable occupier test for abnormal sensitivity
  32. 32Bridlington Relay w Yorkshire Electricity Boardoriginal decision regarding broadcasting reception and that it is not a nuisance
  33. 33Network Rail Infrastructure v CJ Morrissuggestion that reasonable foreseeability rather than abnormal sensitivity; use of electric equipment part of modern life
  34. 34Nor-Video Service v Ontario Hydromore liberal regarding interference with television reception is nuisance
  35. 35Christie v Daveyif there is no real justification for action other than malice than likely courts will interefere
  36. 36Hollywood Silver Fur Farm v Emmettnuisance because motivated by malice despite there being seemingly abnormal sensitivity
  37. 37Andrae v Selfridgenuisance if defendant's lack of care
  38. 38Farrer v Nelsonexcessive behaviour may be unreasonable and hence constitute nuisance
  39. 39Miller v Jacksonwrong to expect claimant to bear too great a burden for benefit of public at large
  40. 40Bellew v Irish Cementinterests of individual over those of public good
  41. 41Kennaway v Thompsoncourt may grant partial injunction to limit frequency to strike a balance between claimant's right to sue and public good
  42. 42Dennis v Ministry of Defenceeven national defence was not enough of a reason of public interest to not find for claimant's right to sue; jet flights
  43. 43Barr v Biffa Waste Servicespublic benefit factor but not to be given too much significance
  44. 44Allen v Gulf Oil Refiningif nuisance due to carrying out statutory authority then will escape all liability if exercised all due care and the and the nuisance is an inevitability
  45. 45Environmental Protection Act 1990 s79public nuisances like pollution, noise and public health governed by statute
  46. 46Attorney General v PYA Quarriespublic nuisance defined as 'acts or omissions of the defendant that materially affect the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subject'; can be 1 off event; Attorney General can start public nuisance claim
  47. 47Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleumpublic nuisance 'covers a multitude of sins, great and small'
  48. 48R v Rimmingtonneeds to be shown that it is widespread and that a number of people will depend on facts of case
  49. 49Attorney General of Ontario v Orangepop festival example of public nuisance
  50. 50Rose v MilesBlocking a canal example of public nuisance; pure economic loss can be claimed in public nuisance
  51. 51Thomas v NUMpicketing on highway example of public nuisance
  52. 52Castle v St Augustine's Linkfor private nuisnace need to show that nuisance is continuous; golf ball being hit onto highway example of public nuisance
  53. 53R v Shorrockacid house party considered public nuisance
  54. 54Wandsworth London BC v Railtrackpigeons being under bridge considered pubic nuisance
  55. 55Group Litigation v Corby DCcarrying waste in uncovered vehicles considered public nuisance
  56. 56Tate and Lyle v GLCwhile under public nuisance individual suing under public nuisance in very limited circumstances, here recovered for approach to river being obstructed
  57. 57Rose v Milespure economic loss may be recovered under public nuisance
  58. 58Rylands v Fletcher‘the person who for his own purpose brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril. And if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage that is the natural consequence of the escape’; also requirement of the defendant's purpose being one of the non natural user
  59. 59Giles v Walkerno liability for purposes of Rylands for spread of thistles from land as they grew naturally and had not been brought onto land
  60. 60Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere Fish Guanoacid can escape and cause mischief
  61. 61Read v Lyonsexplosives can escape and cause mischief
  62. 62AG v Corry Broscolliery spill can escape and cause mischief
  63. 63Stannard v Goreit must be substance collected by defendant that escapes
  64. 64Rickards v Lothiannon-natural use does not mean occurring naturally, but rather it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and not merely ordinary use of land or such use proper for the general benefit of the community; act of a stranger defence no instigation
  65. 65Musgrave v Pandelisnon-natural use of land definition change; used to be car parked on land with full petrol was deemed non-natural
  66. 66Cammidge v Youngdeparts from Musgrave and car no longer non-natural
  67. 67Transco vs Stockport Metropolitan BCpiping of water for domestic use to defendants block of flats deemed natural use of land; makes clear that Rylands extension of private nuisance; has transformed Rickards non-natural to mean 'extraordinary or unusual'
  68. 68Peters v Prince of Walesdefence of volenti, agreed to accumulated material
  69. 69Dunn v Birmingham Canalif escape caused by claimant's action then unable to complain
  70. 70Green v Chelsea Waterworksstatutory authority as defence depends on its construction
  71. 71Perry v Kendrick Transportwill escape liability if it can be shown that unforeseeable act of stranger, and if claimant himself not negligent
  72. 72Nicholas v Marslandact of God, restricted to unforeseeable situtations
  73. 73Hatton v UKagainst Heathrow for noise, court held that good balance between individual right and public benefit, but awarded damages under art 8 HRA 1998
  74. 74Lyons v Gulliverno proprietary interest necessary for public nuisance claims; blocked road public nuisance example; allows individuals to sue under public nuisance if 'over and above' or 'different in kind' - CLASS STILL HAS TO BE
  75. 75Shelfer v London Electriceven if public benefit in private nuisance may still be whole injunction
  76. 76Attorney General v Hastingsno exact number of people that affect a class in public nuisance 'Majesty's subjects'
  77. 77Shiffman v Order of St Johnpossible to impose liability for relatively safe things if escaping makes them dangerous

Informationen

Beschreibung
Karteikarten am Tort - Nuisance, erstellt von victorgrotowski am 16/05/2015.
Erstellt von
victorgrotowski
Aufrufe
1
Bewertung

Feedback

Worum geht es?

Wie gefällt dir das neue Design?

Dein Eindruck