Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
21 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Intro |
C may have an action in the tort of private nuisance, defined as “an unlawful, indirect interference with another person’s use or enjoyment of land, or their rights over it”. |
|
Proprietary interest |
Cmust have a proprietary interest in the land affected, as in Hunter v Canary Wharf, which they do because they [eg. are the owner OR tenant of the house].
|
|
Guest/family member |
IF RELEVANT: A guest or family member cannot claim as they do not have a proprietary interest. |
|
Interference |
Dneed not cause the interference, as in Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan, but must be the occupier of the land where it occurs, either as the owner as in Tetley v Chitty, or by having control or possession of the land. |
|
Examples of nuisance |
Examples of what amounts to a nuisance are: heat/light/dust (Halsey v Esso Petroleum), noise and vibrations (Sturges v Bridgman), noisy neighbours (Coventry v Lawrence), smells (Adams v Ursell), hot air (Robinson v Kilvert), ‘lowering the tone’ of an area (Laws v Florinplace), TV reception (Hunter v Canary Wharf), oily smuts/soot/smoke/fumes (St Helens Smelting v Tipping), balls (Miller v Jackson), blocked culvert/pipe (Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan) and natural causes such as a landslide or cliff subsidence where the defendant knew of the hazard and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it (Leakey v National Trust, Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC). |
|
Physical damage |
Causing physical damage is a ‘prima facie’ nuisance, as in Halsey v Esso Petroleum. [IF RELEVANT: Here, physical damage was caused because. |
|
Competing interestd |
The court will consider the competing interests of C and D, and will consider several FACTORS when deciding whether D’s interference is UNREASONABLE and therefore unlawful. |
|
Locality |
The LOCALITY i.e. character of the area, can make an interference unreasonable. As stated by Thesiger LJ in Sturges v Bridgman, “what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”. In Laws v Florinplace a sex shop was unreasonable in a residential area and in Kennaway v Thompson speedboat races were unreasonable in a quiet lake area. |
|
Social utility |
SOCIAL UTILITY may make an interference more reasonable, where the activity benefits the public, as with a cricket club in Miller v Jackson, although in Adams v Ursell a fish and chip shop did not have social utility. It will not prevent liability, but could be taken into account when deciding the remedy. |
|
Duration |
The DURATION of the interference must usually be regular and ongoing to be unreasonable, as in De Keyser’s Hotel v Spicer Bros, although even a 20 minute firework display was held to be a nuisance in Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks. |
|
Malice |
MALICE shown by the defendant when deliberately disturbing the claimant will make the interference unreasonable, as in Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett. |
|
PARTICULAR SENSITIVITY of the claimant, where the INTERFERENCE WAS UNFORESEEABLE, will make the interference more reasonable, as in Network Rail v Morris. |
Particular sensitivity |
|
Seriousness |
The SERIOUSNESS of the interference will be considered. If it is very serious or severe, it is more likely to be unreasonable. In Miller v Jackson the interference of the cricket balls was infrequent, so less serious. |
|
Statutory authority |
STATUTORY AUTHORITY may be a defence, where the interference is authorised by a law/statute, as in Allen v Gulf Oil Refining. Local authority planning permission can be taken into account, but cannot provide an absolute defence, as in Coventry v Lawrence. |
|
Prescription |
PRESCRIPTION may be a defence, where the nuisance has been “uniformly created” by the defendant as an “actionable nuisance” for the specific claimant for over 20 years, as in Sturges v Bridgman, and in Coventry v Lawrence. |
|
Moved to the nuisance |
It is no defence to say that the claimant ‘moved to the nuisance’, as in Miller v Jackson, unless the claimant changes the use of their property so that it is basically their own fault. |
|
Act of a stranger |
ACT OF A STRANGER may be a defence, where the interference occurred because of the actions of someone over which the defendant had no control, as in Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan. |
|
Conclusion |
TO CONCLUDE, [eg. it is likely that the court will consider D’s interference be unreasonable and therefore unlawful and C’s action is likely to succeed]. |
|
Damages |
DAMAGES may be awarded as in Miller v Jackson. In Coventry v Lawrence it was held that damages should now be awarded in preference to an injunction, especially where local authority planning permission has been granted, or as a public policy issue where there is a public benefit, for example the activity provides jobs, or has social utility as a sporting venue. |
|
Injunction |
An INJUNCTION may be ordered. A PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION prevents D from continuing with the use of land completely, or a PARTIAL INJUNCTION limits part of the activity or the timing of it, as in Kennaway v Thompson. |
|
Human rights |
The HUMAN RIGHTS of the claimant will be considered if there is a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to a private family life, as in Marcic v Thames Water. |