Factors Determining Reasonable User

Factors Determining Reasonable User

1. ABNORMAL SENSITIVITY

   • Result of D's conduct must unreasonably affect ordinary citizen.
   • Discomfort from personal sensitivity not affecting ordinary citizen is not an action in nuisance
   • KEY CASE
     • Robinson v Kilvert
       • D had business in the lower part of a building which needed hot and dry air
         • Temperature of floor of C's premises above rose to 80 degrees F, which lowered value of brown paper stored
         • Heat would not have damaged ordinary paper or caused discomfort to C's workers
         • CA refused the C damages, exceptionally delicate trade and no actionable nuisance
           • D should have the freedom to enjoy his or her property
             • However, once actionable nuisance shown, the C can claim extent of losses, no matter the delicate use of land
   • Unduly sensitive?
     • Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board
       • Claim of company which relayed sound and television broadcasts - business would be interfered with by two pylons within 250 feet
       • Court refused injunction because Ds had said that interference could be remedied
         • Buckley went further and doubted whether interference with primarily recreative activity could be actionable nuisance
           • NOW OUT OF DATE AND THE JUDGE SAID IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE RULE
     • Network Rail v Morris Studio
       • C complained about electromagnetic interference from a section of Railtrack's signal system to the music created by guitars in his recording studio
       • CA - the use of electric and electronic equipment part of modern life
         • What is reasonable in circumstances of the case
   • Utility of Robinson v Kilvert when loss must be reasonably foreseeable to be actionable in nuisance

2. MALICE

   • Deciding whether D's use of land is reasonable - regard to his frame of mind
   • AUTHORITY: CHRISTIE V DAVEY
     • C was a music teacher who taught at home, the D, her neighbour, found it irritating and knocked on the party wall, beat trays, whistled and shrieked.
     • C succeeded in claim for injunction.
     • Judge said that what was done by D was done for annoyance and it was not legitimate use of the D's house
   • HOLLYWOOD SILVER FOX FARM V EMMETT
     • Judge granted injunction against D who deliberately fired guns on his land near boundary with C's land
       • C had a business of breeding silver foxes on their land, and evidence was given that firing guns during breeding time would cause vixens to refuse to breed
   • CONTRAST: HL in BRADFORD CORP V PICKLES
     • D had deliberately drained his land to diminish water supply leading into C's land, forcing them to purchase his land
       • HL did not grant an injunction and refused to say it was malice of the D
       • Should be distinguished from Christie
         • Cs in Bradford had no right to receive the water
         • No right had been interfered with for there to be nuisance
         • Laissez-faire economics, D had simply exercised his right to divert water to get a better deal