Flashcards
Private Nuisance
Cards in this deck (17)
- 1What is Private Nuisance about?Unlawful interference with someone's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over or in connection with it.
This is a land-based tort, so only certain people can claim, and not for personal injury. - 2Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997]Canary Wharf's construction interfered with people's TV and those with asthma.
They could have brought a claim under public nuisance, however only those with damages over and above others affected would be able to claim, this is why they wanted to claim under private, as more could claim.
However, those who were children and those staying with others did not have an interest in land, so could not claim.
Only those who have an interest in land can claim.
(look at Dobson v Thames Water Utilities [2009]) - 3Who can be sued?Creator
Occupier
Landlord
(the creator may have created the nusiance sometime earlier, so may be easier to sue the occupier, or the Landlord if they are not the occupier). - 4Who is a creator?The person who creates the nuisance, even if they are no longer there.
- 5Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994]The place involved a lot of chemicals, and they went into the ground and into the water supply. They left the land, over time the land became contaminated.
The question was whether we could sue the people who ran the plant 10 years ago, yes. - 6Who is an occupier?Anyone who occupies the land at the time, they don't even have to be aware of the breach, they are still liable.
- 7Goldman v Hargrave [1966]A tree struck by lightning, and new it was still smoldering, and due to the wind it caught alight again and spread onto the claimants land.
Claimed it was an act of god, the court said he was aware of the problem, which it was smoldering, so should have done something.
He was responsible despite it starting as an act of god. - 8Leakey v National Trust [1980]The trust was well aware of the state of the land, and the fact landslides would regularly occur.
Occupier was liable - 9Holbeck Hall v Scarborough Borough Council [2000]The council had no knowledge of the danger, and had done nothing to create it, so they were not liable. It is also viewed they were not liable because the courts did not want to decide what the council should spend their money on.
Hotel was destroyed by a landslide, of which the council were the occupiers. - 10Who is a Landlord?They are the person who owns the land
- 11Tetley v Chitty [1986]The council allowed a go-kart club to use their land for a race track. Nearby residents brought an action for nuisance. The council were liable for authorising the use of the activity. The noise and smell were an ordinary and necessary for the use of a go-kart track. So them giving permission for the track meant they gave permission for the smell and noise, which is what was complained about.
- 12What are the 5 tests for reasonablenessLocality
Duration
Sensitivity
Public Utility
Malice
(go through all of these to apply or disprove them in a problem question) - 13Sturges v Bridgman [1879] (locality)The defendant ran a noisy pestle and mortar, and had operated it for 20 years, but had no neighboring property.
C built a consulting room for his practice next to the defendant's noisy shop. C brought a claim under nuiscance to obtain an injunction to prevent the noise.
Held there was a nuisance, it did not matter the doctor had moved to the nuisance. What may be a nuisance in one area, may not be in another location, it would be unjust to allow the nuisance. - 14Spicer v Smee [1946] (Duration)You can have a one off ocurance of a nuisance, for example, the release of a firework, would be reasonable to allow it.
- 15Robinson v Kilvert [1889] (Sensitivity)The reasonable claimant would not have been affected, however, the claimant's paper was particularly sensitive to the heat the defendant generated. Any other claimant and it would not have been a problem.
Held, the defendant was not liable, the damage was due to the special sensitivity, so was not reasonable for the claim. - 16Miller v Jackson [1977] (Public Utility)D was a member of a Cricket Club, and had been played for 70 years. The land was owned by The National Coal Board, and four years prior to litigation, a small part of the land was sold for housing development.
C purchased once of the houses and brought an action to prevent them playing cricket, as balls were hit over her house. No personal injury, but some property damage, which the cricket company paid for. She complained she could not use her garden and would stay out of the house during games.
Held, they were liable for nuisance and negligence. LJ Cumming Bruce suggested it was not reasonable to give an injunction though, as the cricket ground had been around for so long, and would be a loss to the community.
However, Lord Lane, in his decenting judgment, said the cricket ground saying Mrs Miller came to the nuisance was no a defense following Sturges v Bridgeman. - 17Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936] (Malice)C bred silver foxes for their fur, the foxes are timid, and if disturbed whilst pregnant, they were prone to miscarry. Furthermore, if they are alarmed, they may devour them. D was a neighbour, and objected to the fox farm due to the smell, and fired gun on his own land to scare the foxes to impede breading.
Held, D was liable for nuisance, despite the abnormal sensitivity of the foxes, as he was motivated by a malice.
Information
- Description
- Law of Tort (Nuisance) Flashcards on Private Nuisance, created by James Dolton on 08/03/2018.
- Created by
- James Dolton
- Views
- 0
- Rating