O GoConqr está de visual novo! Conte para nós o que você achou.

Mapa mental

Private Nuisance

Tan Nah Tort Inglês

Mind map on private nuisance: claimant, defendant, defences and remedies

Mind map: Private nuisance

Conteúdo do mapa

Private Nuisance

  1. any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with c's land, or his enjoyment of that land

    • Bamford v Turnley
  2. claimant

    • must have propreitary interest in the land
      • not sufficient to be spouse/child of such
        • Malone v Laskey
          • wife injured when cistern fell on her due to vibes
      • Hunter v Canary Wharf
        • many of the 700 failed as no prop int in land
        • confirmed in Dobson v Thames Water
  3. defendant

    • creator of nuisance, even if not occupier
      • Thomas v NUM
    • occupier of land from where nuisance originated
      • Leakey v National Trust
        • mound of earth collapsed
      • not liable if nuisance caused by
        • independent contracters
          • unless nuisance is reasonably foreseeable consequence of what occ. asked them to do
          • Matania v National Provincial Bank
            • liable for excesive noise and dust in building works
              • people expected to put up with a certain amount of disruption
            • music teacher was unable to earn living whilst contracters worked
        • previous occupiers
        • trespassers
          • unless occupier adopted/accepted nuisance by failing to abate it
            • Page Motors v Epsom
            • Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan
              • d hadn't taken steps to abate leaky pipe laid by LA
        • natural condition of the land
          • unless occupier knew and did nothing to abate
            • Goldman v Hargrave
            • but will not be liable if cost of abating is too onerous
              • Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC
      • landlord only liable is he created or authorised nuisance
        • Tetley v Chitty
          • landlord liable for knowingly leasing premises to go kart club
        • Coventry v Lawrence
          • landlord could be liable if authorised, direct participation or leasing in circumstances where high probability that particular nuisance would happen
  4. indirect interference

    • not through trespass
    • something originating on d's land must intefere with c's land
      • Bernstein v Skyviews
    • examples
      • noise and vibrations
        • Sturges v Bridgman
      • noise and smells
        • Halsey v Esso Petroleum
  5. causing damage

    • damage is an essential component to a nuisance claim
      • inc consequential economic loss but not PEL
    • only reasonably foreseeable damage can be claimed for
      • Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
      • must be reasonably foreseeable type of damage even if exact way it occurred is not foreseeable
    • cannot claim for PI in private nuisance
      • Hunter v Canary Wharf
    • two types of damage are recoverable
      • property damage
        • eg subsidence caused by tree roots
          • Lemmon v Webb
      • sensible personal discomfort (SDP)
        • interference with c's use or enjoyoment of land
          • smells
          • noise
          • smoke
          • 'anything that affects the senses or the nerves'
            • St Helens Smelting v Tipping
          • cause of interference must be actively emitted
            • passive blocking of TV signals was not SDP
              • Hunter v Canary Wharf
        • more than fancical and materially intefere with ordinary human comfort
          • Walter v Selfe
      • St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping
    • must be more than de minimis (trivial)
      • Mitchell v Darley Main Colliery
  6. which is unlawful

    • unlawful = unreasonable
      • an objective standard
        • a question of give and take / live and let live in circumstances of everyday life
          • Bamford v Turnley
        • balance between rights of d and c to enjoy their land
          • Sedleigh-Denfield
    • liability is strict
      • if use is reasonable, d will not be liable for any consequential harm
      • if unreasonable, d still liable even if exercised reasonable care / skill in trying to avoid harm
    • factors to consider in deciding what is unreasonable
      • character of neighbourhood
        • Sturges v Bridgman
          • factory held to be unreasonable in residential area
          • what would be a nuisane in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey
        • character of area can change over time
        • granting of planning permission may alter character of a neighbourhood
          • Gillingham v Medway
        • not relevant factor for phyiscal damage (only SDP)
          • Helens Smelting v Tipping
        • Laws v Florinplace
          • sleazy men, sex shop in residential area
      • public utility
        • utility will never in itself prevent activity being unreasonable
          • Adams v Ursell
            • fish n chip shop was a nuisance despite benefitting local residents
          • Bellew v Irish Cement
            • the only cement factory in Ireland shut down
          • but may affect remedy awarded
            • eg partial injunction rather than full injunction
              • Dennis v MoD
                • harriers only allowed to fly at certain times
          • Barr v Biffa Waste Services
            • public utility not to be given too much signifnicance
      • time & duration
        • isolated one off incidents not actionable
          • Bolton v Stone
          • Castle v St Augustine Golf Club
          • unless it involves fire
            • Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks
              • held to be privaten nuisance but succeeded in neg
              • firework display resulting in fire
        • nuisance must be continuous or regular occurence
        • courts will consider when nuisance occurs, how often, and duration
          • Kennaway v Thompson
            • noise from boat racing and water skiing club
          • Spicer v Smee
            • fire started in bungalow due to defective wiring, which was continual state of affairs even though the fire was a one off
        • mostly for SDP
      • malice
        • malicious actions are always unreasonable
        • where no real justification except to annoy c
        • Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
          • firing into the air to force foxes to miscarry
        • Christie v Davey
          • neighbour caused noise nuisance during c's piano teaching
            • injunction
      • unusual / excessive / careless acts
        • usualy unreasonable
          • eg Farrer v Nelson
            • d owned hundreds of pheasants
      • abnormal sensitivity
        • c with abnormal sensitivities cannotv claim for activities that would not intefere with ordinary occupier
          • Robinson v Kilvert
            • heat sensitive paper damaged by neighbouring boiler
          • Morris v Network Rail
            • new traiinline signals interfering with recording equipment, not liable as held to be abnormally sensitive
          • McKinnon v Walker
            • rare orchards, died, but ordinary flowers would have died too so was claimable
      • moving to nuisance
        • immaterial
          • Sturges v Bridgman
  7. defences

    • volenti
    • cont neg
    • statutory authority
      • full defence
      • Allen v Gulf Oil Refinery
        • statute authorised refinery. resultant noise and vibrations implied by statute
        • test
          • 1) d must have exercised all due care
          • 2) nuisance caused must be inevitable result of authorised activity
      • planning permission is not statutory authority
        • Wheeler v JJ Saunders
          • pig farm emitting smells preventing use of holiday cottages. planning permission was not a defence
    • 20 years prescription
      • not a defence to argue c moved to nuisance after has been actionable for 20 years +
      • c comes to nuisance and also changes use of land so that d's activities now cause nuisance then this may be a defence
        • Lawrence v Coventry
      • if no action taken after 20 years, defence operable
  8. remedies

    • injunctions
      • full or partial
      • commonsense approach
    • damages in lieu of injunction
      • if nuisance is trivial or unpreventable
        • Dennis v MoD
      • damages compensate for actual damage or loss of amenity value for land
        • as in Hunter
    • abatement
      • self help remedy
      • c can enter d's lannd and take reasonable steps to stop nuisance with notice
  9. 'good neighbourliness'

    • Southwark LBC v Tanner

Informações

Descrição
Tort Mapa Mental sobre Private Nuisance, criado por Tan Nah em 01-08-2018.
Criado por
Tan Nah
Visualizações
1
Avaliação

Fale Conosco

Sobre o que é sua mensagem?

O que você acha do novo visual?

Você gostou?