Fichas
private nuisance
Fichas del conjunto (26)
- 1what is private nuisance?defined as an unlawful interference with a persons use/enjoyment of land or some right over, in connection with it.
- 2what are the three types of private nuisance1) physical injury to land
2) substantial interference with enjoyment of land
3) encroachment on a neighbours land - 3where are the courts more willing to find a nuisance?in cases of damage to property. mere personal discomfort will be treated less important unless interference is such that is conflicting with the comfort physically of human existence
- 4what is the main test for private nuisance?reasonable user: Sedleigh v O'Callaghan: balance has to be maintained between right of occupier to do what he likes with his land and right of neighbour not to be interfered with
- 5what Q will the courts ask?is the result of Ds conduct such that it is likely to cause unreasonable interference with Cs enjoyment of land?
- 6factors determining reasonable user: 1) locality-not relevant where material physical damage has been suffered by C.
-where C has suffered personal discomfort/inconvenience it becomes relevant.
-nature of locality may change overtime and is examined as it is today- wheeler v saunders (planning permission not be said to allow a change in character of neighbourhood) - 72) duration and frequency-C will have to endure some inconvenience in his enjoyment of land. what is unreasonable is when it happens frequently and for long periods of time.
-must be substantial- so the Q is one of degree and whether interference is sufficiently serious.
-common-sense approach will be used - 83) utility of Ds conduct-mere fact Ds act benefits community will not stop liability from arising.
-as nuisance is concerned with balancing interests it may be that C will have to bear some disturbance.
-Q of degree of interference again- adams v ursell - 94) abnormal sensitivityresult of Ds conduct must be such as to unreasonably affect the ordinary citizen. discomfort resulting from personal sensitivity to noise/heat which would not affect ordinary man= no nuisance
-robinson v kilvert.
-cannot be just to impose burden on D to compensate all Cs for interference no matter how sensitive they are- would encroach on Ds enjoyment of land. - 105) malice-malice can turn what might otherwise be reasonable conduct into unreasonable activity
-christie v davey - 11who can sue in private nuisance?-must be land in which C has proprietary interest (malone v laskey)
-hunter v canary wharf: must have right to exclusive possession. nuisance characterised by protection of proprietary interest - 121) who has rights in land? 2) losses incurred before acquisition of land1) anyone with right to exclusive possession.
2) provided nuisance is continuing, C may sue for losses if they are before acquistion (masters v brent) - 13how does this fit to landlords?-revisionary interest in premises; right to possession at end of lease. can sue where property value has been diminished.
- 14who can be sued?1) creator (whether or not he occupies land where interference is)- hall v beckenham corp
2) occupier- during occupancy - 15occupier exercises control over the creatoroccupier will be liable for nuisance created by its employees and extends to independent contractors where duty not to create nuisance is non-delegable. (matania v national provincial bank)
- 16occupier has adopted or continued nuisance by a trespasserif nuisance is created by trespasser, occupier is liable not only if he adopts nuisance for own purposes but it he fails to take r/able steps to abate it.
sedleigh v o'callaghan - 17occupier has adopted/continued nuisance created by an act of naturesedleigh v o'callaghan applies where there has been an act of nature.
- 18the measured duty of care-Ds conduct should not be judged in light of his resources and ability to act in circumstances.
-where D poor and abatement will require vast expense D not liable (Goldman)
-D not liable where they are unable to foresee extent of loss suffered - 19the landlord-on grant of a lease, tenant will be liable for any nuisance.
3 circumstances where an alternative action lies against the landlord;
1) where landlord expressly/impliedly authorises nuisance. (tetley v chitty)
2) landlord knew/ought to have known of nuisance before letting
3) if premises fall into despair during lease, he is liable if he has reserved right to enter & repair (degree of control) - 20emanationhunter v canary wharf- that the nuisance would generally arise from something emanating from Ds land
- 21defences- statutory authority-defence to prove interference is an inevitable result of an obligation
-whether operation causing alleged nuisance are within authority given by statute
-allen v gulf oil - 22defences- prescription-D obtains legal right to act in a certain way due to passage of time.
-valid defence to show nuisance complained of had interfered with Ps interest in land for more than 20 years.
-sturges v bridgman - 23inevitable accidentdamage suffered by C despite the exercise of all r/able care by D.
- 24ineffective defences- coming to the nuisancec may sue even though the nuisance was, to his knowledge, in existence before he arrived at premises.
bliss v hall - 25jus tertiirests of allegation that a third party has a better title to the affected land than the C, 3rd party should therefore bring the action
- 26due to manyno excuse D was simply one of many causing nuisance in question
lambton v mellish
Información
- Descripción
- Fichas sobre private nuisance, creado por holmull el 11/05/2015.
- Creado por
- holmull
- Visitas
- 5
- Valoración