Nuisance 2

Page 1

Servants got ill as well as people around.

Bamford sued to prevent this nuisance so conditions and fumes would stop.

Bamford is not successful. Reason is that judge said question of nuisance entirely on the surrounding circumstances, the time where, time when etc, makes it impossible to lay down any rule of law that applies to every case. All depends on facts and circumstances of the case.

Every case is dependant on facts of the case.

In this case a landowner is not liable in nuisance where the consequences of what would be recognised as a natural use of his land by him.

Use land in whatever way you want as long as its the natural use by you.

If you do something totally unreasonable then nuisance will apply.

Duration and intensity of the nuisance also matters.

The existence of a building does not constitute nuisance.

Hunter v Canary Wharf - building was built which blocked the TV signal of the houses. tower was close to BBC transmitter, the local homeowners no longer got any television. Buidiling interfered with their reception.

Tower completed in November 1990, for 5 months local homeowners didn't have any TV because building interfered with their signal.

Is this a nuisance?

What they wanted was a reimbursement of TV licence fee for time they were not able to watch the TV.

2 main aspects

1.