Karteikarten
Ohne Titel
Karten in diesem Stapel (17)
- 1Hunter (standing)Only those with a proprietary interest can sue in PN
Docklands was a run down derelict area. The tower was built as part of a massive regeneration project. The tower was at that time the highest building in London. 2 main legal complaints.
i. presence of the tower blocked television reception
ii. building works in the area lead to dust and noise such as to constitute a private nuisance
Clarifies that private nuisance is a tort about property. A lot of these claimants don’t have standing in private nuisance because they have no proprietary interest. They included children, lodgers. It became a case about who can use in private nuisance. Coughing and spluttering affects the value of land, so only the people who can sue are those with proprietary interest. - 2DobsonExistence of the HRA is seen as a reason not to change the common law for nuisance.
Smells on residential property. In Dobson, those with prop interest brought a claim in nuisance, those who did not used the HRA. Shows that the HRA covers the inadequacies of the law. - 3St HelensNature of the locality must be taken into account for amenity damage.
2 allowable claims in damage to land
i. Damage to land itself and things fixed on it
ii. Damage to amenity value of the land
The pollution was so bad in this case that if locality had meant there was no nuisance, then it is hard to imagine any case where bad smells would lead to action in industrial areas. - 4Barr v Biffa, LJ CarnwarthRule of reasonable user: it is not a free-standing test, it is a general approach to private nuisance which encompasses a number of other questions.
- 5Walter v SelfeReasonable user test must be applied according to 'plain and sober notions'.
There needs to be sufficiently severe interference. - 6Cambridge Waters (reasonable user)PN is a strict liability tort, efforts will play no role. Failure to take reasonable care not a necessary criterion.
- 7Coventry v Lawrence (planning permission/locality)Lord Neuberger says you take into account the defendant’s activity when you decide on the nature of the locality, but not where his activities constitute a nuisance (circular).
The basic starting point is that planning permission is of no help to a defendant: Lord Neuberger. However, even Lord Neuberger acknowledges that there are exceptional cases which may be prima facie relevant: specifically in using very detailed terms (eg if the planning permission specifies the times of day at which noise is permitted) - 8Christie v Daveywhere the defendant acts out of malice the defendant is more likely to be understood as unreasonable.
In this case the claimant was a music teacher. Every time she started to teach the defendant would bang loudly on the adjoining wall with baking trays and shout. - 9Hollywood Silver Fox Farmwhere the defendant acts out of malice the defendant is more likely to be understood as unreasonable, EVEN if the claimant is particularly sensitive.
In this case the claimant was breeding silver foxes which are notoriously skittish and when startled have been known to miscarry and even devour their young. Emmett, disliking the farm, shot his gun close to the farm in order to scare the foxes.
the defendant was held liable despite the abnormal sensitivity of the foxes because he was motivated by malice. - 10Bradford v Picklesthe defendant deliberately diverted water in order to force his neighbour to pay an inflated amount for his land.
Although motivated by malice, the court understood that no one has a right to water running over their property. The diversion of water by a neighbour does not constitute a nuisance. - 11Hunter (malice)obiter: mere presence of building, generally not nuisance, can be if erected maliciously
- 12Miller v JacksonComing to the nuisance not a defence
CA: A group of houses was built next to a cricket pitch. New residence compliant that the cricket balls were landing in their gardens. Ds said that they were here first.
CA said that this was not a defence, but Denning disagrees. - 13Coventry v Lawrence (coming to the nuisance)Confirms that coming to nuisance is not defence.
But where "use" rather than "ownership" changes, in such a way that what was previously not bothering anyone became a nuisance then this is a relevant factor in assessing locality (but only for amenity).
Obiter: D's activities should be treated as part of the character of the locality. Court will protect Ds against the generation of potentially novel claims.
This is potentially a big change in the law of private nuisance. All the cases in the past have been changes of use, not changes of occupation. - 14Robinson v Kilvertif the claimant is abnormally sensitive or their use of land is particularly sensitive, the defendant will not be liable unless the activity would have amounted to a nuisance to a reasonable person using the land in a normal manner.
D carried out a business of making paper boxes. This required a warm dry atmosphere. The claimant operated the above room where he stored sensitive brown paper. The heat from below damaged the paper. - 15Network RailCA held that sensitive use no longer relevant, may be subsumed under the general requirement of reasonable use.
But authority is fragile, because they rely on cases which are very different from them. They also overstate the role of reasonableness. - 16Sedleigh-DenfieldAct of 3rd parties, D is not subject to fault, not strict liability.
Concept of 'adopting' the nuisance'. Reasonableness of D's response can be assessed.
Knowledge of existence of nuisance required as well as its harmful consequences. - 17Goldman v Hargrave (PC) confirmed in LeakeyConsider:
knowledge of hazard
knowledge of the consequences of the hazard
ability to abate it: reasonableness
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Ohne Titel, erstellt von thamsungming am 24/04/2015.
- Erstellt von
- thamsungming
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung