Private Nuisance
Order by
54 terms
Terms | Definitions |
|---|---|
 Malone v Laskey | Parties: claimant must have proprietary or possessionary interest in land. license not sufficient. toilet cictern fell on wife. |
| Hunter v Canary Wharf | Parties: must have interest in land. + Nuisance does not protect recreational facilities, eg view, TV& radio reception |
| unlawful activity that is harmful or noxious and interferes with another person's rights, use or enjoyment of their land | definition of Nuisance, Read v Lyons |
| any continuous activity causing substantial unreasonable interference with a plaintiff's land or his enjoyment of that land | definition of Private Nuisance, Bamford v Turnley |
| Thomas v NUM | Who can be sued? 1. The Creator |
| Leakey v National Trust | Who can be sued? 2. The occupier. + Occupier IS liable for nuisance caused by acts of nature which he could reasonably prevent. Earth capsized onto plaintiff's land (natural causes), but National trust did nothing to prevent it hence liable. cf Holbeck hall Hotel v Scarborough |
| Matania v National Provincial Bank | An exceptional case where occupier was liable for independent contractors as it was forseeable that they will cause nuisance |
| Page Motors v Epsom | Occupier is not liable for nuisance acaused by trespassers unless he acquiesces (gypsies on council land next to posh car dealer) |
| Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough | Occupier is not liable for nuisance caused by acts of nature which he could not have reasonably prevented. cf Leakey v National Trust |
| Tetley v Chitty | Landlords generally not liable unless it was forseeable that tenant would cause nuisance (go-cart club) |
| Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties | Damage must be established by claimant and recovery will be made to the extent the damage was reasonably forseeable. (damage (1 mln relocation costs) to a pumping station 3 miles away from the leather factory was not forseeable) |
| Hunter v Canary Wharf | not possible to claim for PI in private nuisance |
| St Helens v Tipping | Elements of Nuisance: 2. Damage. types of damage in private nuisance: physical damage & sensible pesonal discomfort (SPD). no diminution of value of land in the latter case. |
| Lemmon v Webb | example of physical damage - overhanging branches damaged plaintiff's land |
| Bernstein v Skyviews | Elements of Nuisance: 1. Indirect Interference (with enjoyment or use of land). aerial photos |
| Bamford v Turnley | Elements of Nuisance: 3. Unlawful (=unreasonable) interference. Objective standard, weighing different factors |
| Bolton v Stone | Factors of unreasonable interference: Duration 6 times hit by ball over 30 years |
| Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks | Factors of unreasonable interference: Duration can be short if fire |
| Laws v Florinplace | Factors of unreasonable interference: Locality (nuisance in belgrave sq / not in bermondsey). Sex shop in Pimlico. |
| St Helens v Tipping | Locality will not be considered when physical damage is concerned!!! |
| Wheeler v Saunders | Factors of unreasonable interference: Locality. planning permit does not authorise nuisance: pig farming case |
| Gillingham v Medway | planning permission can change the character of an area from residential to industrial so what used to be nuisance is no longer nuisance. or vice versa. |
| Adams v Ursell | Public benefit does not authorise nuisance. Chip shop in a working class area was a nuisance. |
| Miller v Jackson | Public benefit will affect remedies (injunction full or partial/ order for compensation only) |
| Robinson v Kilvert | Factors of unreasonable interference: Abnormal Sensitivity. sensitive brown paper. No nuisance if hypothetical reasonable claimant would not have been affected - otherwise full extent of damage recoverable |
| Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett | Factors of unreasonable interference: Malice is unreasonable. neighbour shooting in the air to prevent foxes from breeding. |
| Miller v Jackson | Moving into Nuisance: not a valid defence the village cricket case |
| Sturges v Bridgeman | Defence: 20 years prescription. Confectionary existed for over 20 yrs and claimant doctor claimed nuisance only after extension of his premises. Valid defence |
| Rylands v Fletcher | strict liability where the defendant brought something unnatural (likely to do mischief) onto its land and it escaped. An isolated incedent is enough |
| Read v Lyons | Rylands case: no element of escape, no liability: claimant injured by explosion on the defendant's land |
| Tate v Lyle v GLC | public nuisance claimant must have suffered special damage over anb above others - dredging costs |
| any nuisance is public which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of her majesty's subjects, AG v PYA Quarries | public nuisance definition |
| r v rimmington | how many is class? q of fact for the court. 538 individuals are not class (racial hatred letters) |
| AG of ontario v Orange | public nuisance - pop fest |
| Thomas v NUM | picketing on the highway |
| R v Shorrock | nuisance - acid house party |
| public nuisance | claimant in public nuisance: no need to have interest in land but must suffer over and above the class: damage includes PI: one-off events sufficient: |
| Rose v Miles | pure economic loss recoverable in public nuisance |
| Giles v Walker | rylands - brings on the land and accumulates there (thistle case) |
| Rainham v Belvedere Fish Guano | rylands - for his own purposes anything likely to do mischief (acid) |
| Read v Lyons | that escapes (in this case no escape as claimant injured on def's land; plus PI not recoverable and for Rylands, munitions are not an an natural use of land in wartime) |
| Rickards v Lothian | rylands (non-natural use) no liability as ordinary and proper use of land |
| Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre | Defence to Rylands: common benefit |
| Dunn v Birmingham Canal | Defence to Rylands: act or default of the claimant (escape caused by actions of the claimant |
| Charing cross Electricity v Hydraulic | Defence to Rylands: statutory authority |
| Hale v Jennings Bros | Defence to Rylands: act of a stranger (will operate if no negligence on the part of the defendant) |
| Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties | Rylands v Fletcher is based on private nuisance |
| McKenna v British Aluminium | claims without interest in land were allowed in the light of HRA1998 cf Dobson v Thames Water - interest in land still aplies |
| AG v Hastings | Public Nuisance: "class of HM subjects" can be a small number of people |
| Kennaway v Thompson | Partial injunction in private nuisance. water sports club |
| Christie v Davey | music teacher v angry neighbour. the neighbour's malice tipped the scales in claimant's favour. neighbours counterclaim was not allowed. cf bradford v pickles where neighbour drained his land on purpose to prevent water from his neighbours site. seemingly bad intentions were not taken into account |
| -defendant BRINGS onto his land and accumulates (rylands+, giles v walker -); -something likely to do MISCHIEF (classic case - chemicals (Cambridge water+); - if it ESCAPEs (Read v Lyons -); - NON-natural user (added by HL in Rylands; Read v Lyons -, Transco -); -(no fault necessary but - FORSEEABLE DAMAGE (Cambridge water-) | rylands elements |
| Transco v Stockport | rylands claim requires interest in land; no pi is recoverable; subset of private nuisance |
| Allen v Gulf Oil | Defence of Statutory Authority |
First Time Here?
Welcome to Quizlet, a fun, free place to study. Try these flashcards, find others to study, or make your own.