GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Flashcards

Nuisance

Dave Ballam Law of Tort Level 6 English 43 cards

Cards in this deck (43)

  1. 1Public nuisanceIs a crime. A person who suffers special damage may bring a civil action for damages. Special damage is damage over and above that suffered by the class of persons affected.
  2. 2Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957]Public Nuisance is one which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of her majesty's subjects. It is so widespread/indiscriminate that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings.
  3. 3Private NuisanceUnlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it.
    Court must decide if D has caused, adopted, or continued an unreasonable interference.
  4. 4Malone v Laskey [1907]A person must have an interest in the affected land
  5. 5Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]Entitlement to the use and enjoyment of land remains a necessary characteristic of a claimant in a private nuisance action.
    (C must have an interest in the land)
  6. 6Nuisance - Types of defendants* Occupier;
    * Creator of the nuisance;
    * Landlord;
  7. 7OccupierMay be liable for certain nuisances which arise on his land from natural events or acts of third parties.
  8. 8Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940]Nuisance - Act of third party.
    Drainage pipe laid by a trespasser. D was aware that pipe became blocked with debris. D was liable for "continuing and adopting the nuisance"
  9. 9Goldman v Hargrave [1967]Nuisance - Natural events - Lightning, tree, fire
  10. 10Creator of nuisanceWill always be liable whether or not he is still in occupation of the land from which the nuisance originates.
  11. 11LandlordsNot usually liable in nuisance, as he has parted with control of the land. Exceptions on a separate cue card.
  12. 12Landlords - Nuisance Exceptions (Where Landlord will be liable)1) Nuisances existing at the time of the letting which landlord knew ootk about;
    2) Where the landlord has authorised the nuisance expressly or impliedly;
    3) Landlord may be liable where he has reserved a right to enter and repair or has implied right to do so
  13. 13Tetley v Chitty [1986]Go-kart track. Landlord (Council) was liable in nuisance because he granted a lease for go-kart track and nuisance was a natural and probable consequence of the operation of the track.
  14. 14DamageUnreasonable and substantial interference with C's use or enjoyment of land or damage to the land itself.
  15. 15St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping [1865]Reasonableness. Distinction drawn between nuisances causing material damage to property and those causing personal discomfort.
  16. 16Material Damage(St Helen's) D will be liable unless the claimant is shown to be oversenstive or a defence applies.
  17. 17Leakey v National Trust [1980]The standard of care is a subjective one. The court will look at the cost of abatement and the resources (financial and physical) of the occupier. "D's duty is to do that which is reasonable for HIM to do"
  18. 18Latent defectIt is knowledge of the nuisance that involves liability for continuing it when it could reasonable be abated. If the defect is latent the landowner cannot be held liable simply because he had not discovered it.
  19. 19Personal DiscomfortCourts will have greater regard to the circumstances surrounding the interference
  20. 20Personal discomfort considerations* Locality; * Duration of the interference; * Defendant's malicious response to C's behaviour; * Public utility.
  21. 21Sturges v Bridgman [1879]Locality. What would be a nuisance in one place would not necessarily be in another.
  22. 22Duration of the interferenceRepetition or recurrence of the interference. The longer something continues, the more likely it is to be a nuisance. Eg building works unlikely to constitute an actionable nuisance.
  23. 23Defendant's malicious response to C's behaviourA malicious response may be unreasonable and a nuisance. Eg arranging for guns to be fired close to D's land
  24. 24Christie v Davey [1893]Motive made their actions unreasonable and a nuisance
  25. 25Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895]"If it was a lawful act, however ill the motive might be, the defendant has a right to do it"
  26. 26Public utility argumentWhen assessing reasonableness, court does not take into account whether the activity is for the public benefit, however in deciding whether to grant an injunction, the court may take into account public interest.
  27. 27Defences to Private Nuisance* Sensitivity; * Common enemy; * Contributory negligence; * Consent; * Prescription; * Statutory authority; * Public interest;
  28. 28Sensitivity of the claimant or claimant's propertyDefence to private nuisance. Where the damage is due more to the sensitivity of the claimant or the claimant's property than to the defendant's activity, no nuisance is committed.
  29. 29Robinson v Kilvert [1889]Sensitivity. Damage to claimant's paper - damage was held to be due more to the sensitivity of the paper than D's activities
  30. 30McKinnon Industries Ltd v Walker [1951]Sensitivity. Sulphur dioxide damaged C's orchids. Emissions were also damaging other vegetation and not just the sensitive plants grown by C.
  31. 31Common enemy ruleEnables an occupier of land to prevent flood waters coming on to his land, even where that resulted in harm to neighbouring land.
  32. 32PrescriptionIf the nuisance has been carried out for a period of 20 years, and the claimant was aware of the nuisance throughout the relevant period - the defence of prescription applies. Complete defence
  33. 33Statutory authorityIf statutory authority permits or orders something to be done the courts will normally interpret this as authority to cause interference provided there is no negligence.
  34. 34Wheeler v Saunders [1995]Planning permission does not amount to statutory authority in a defence to a nuisance claim.
  35. 35Public interestPublic interest might also provide a defence. Fighter jets - C awarded damages and not an injunction. It is in the public interest to train fighter pilots but C should not have to bear the cost.
  36. 36Coming to the nuisanceComing to the nuisance is no defence! It is also no defence that C invited his peace to be disturbed. Sturges v Bridgman [1879]
  37. 37Fault in private nuisanceDistinction drawn between creating a nuisance and continuing/adopting a nuisance. Creating = strict liab. Continuing/adopting = fault based.
  38. 38Test for remotenessWagon Mound (No 2) [1967] - Reasonable foreseeability of the type of damage caused.
  39. 39Remedies for private nuisancePrincipal remedy is an injunction. Damages. Abatement/self help but must avoid commiting trespass
  40. 40Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895]Court's discretion not to award an injunction is only to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. D should not be allowed to buy the right to commit a nuisance.
  41. 41Kennaway v Thompson [1981]Public utility - Not relevant to decision whether to grant a public nuisance injunction
    (Expressly disagreeing with Denning's ruling in Miller v Jackson [1977])
  42. 42Hussain v Lancaster City Council [1999]Verbal abuse was not private nuisance as it did not concern the claimant's use of land
  43. 43Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961]Interference with comfort or convenience in C's use of land is recoverable.
    E.g. loss of sleep

Information

Description
Level 6 Law of Tort (Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher) Flashcards on Nuisance, created by Dave Ballam on 28/11/2017.
Created by
Dave Ballam
Views
25
Rating

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?