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;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Bright |
Why should a landowner be held legally responsible for the wrongs of a trouble maker commits against his neighbour Parameters of nuisance law are unclear and malleable Unless the property owner owes a special responsibility to protect the victim from harm, he should be liable for the wrongful behaviour of others on his land only where he is in some manner responsible for it. The reason why a public body would be required to act is not because it happens to be the owner of property from which the nuisance emanates...but because it is charged with responsibility for acting in the interests of the community and protecting the rights of individuals. |
|
Definition of private nuisance |
Any act or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with C's land or C's use or enjoyment of the land.
|
|
Public nuisance
|
Primarily a crime of great breadth. Damages are recoverable in tort where C has suffered 'serious' damage e.g. personal injury or economic loss
|
|
What can constitute private nuisance |
Physical damage, interference with comfort and convenience (intangible damage) or harassment (though this is controversial particular as korandashi decision was disapproved of by HL in Hunter v Canary Wharf |
|
St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping |
Where damage is material/physical courts are likely to grant C a remedy. Where c's claim concerns comfort and convenience, courts engage in a balancing act of competing land uses. |
|
Walter v Selfe |
Alleged interferences with amenity are assessed by reference to plain and simple notions among English people |
|
Sturgess v Bridgman (locality) |
'What would be a nuisance in Belgrave would not be so in Bermondsey' Locality is important |
|
Gillingham BC v Medway Dock (locality) |
Planning authority granted planning permission for commercial use because they said redevelopment in the area was necessary. As a result, the level of amenity enjoyed by residents was reduced |
|
Barr v Biffa Waste Management Services |
D operated a landfill into which was tipped oderous waste. The environment agency had granted D a waste permit but C's (residents) complained of the smell etc. At trial the judge said that the C's could not establish an unreasonable use of the land because they did not allege that D had reached the permit. On appeal C were successful. The correct test was: would a normal person have found it reaosnable to put up with the effect of D's activities? |
|
Considerations for balancing an interference with amenity |
levels of interference abnormal sensitivity public benefit malice |
|
Robinson v Kilvert (abnormal sensitivity) |
C's premises were situated above Ds. Heat generated in D's house rose into C's premises and damaged sensitive paper. CA said D was not liable because what was at stake was unusually sensitive (the same reasoning applies to abnormally sensitive people) |
|
Matania (level of interference) |
Temporary interference may if substantial constitute an actionable nuisance |
|
British Celanese (level of interference) |
An isolated occurrence can give rise to an actionable nuisance. |
|
Miller v Jackson (public benefit) |
Claimant moved into new property which was side by side with a cricket ground. The balls kept breaking her windows and she felt unsafe. Injunctive relief was refused and damages were given instead (this was because the CA considered public benefit of allowing the game to continue being played) |
|
Christie v Davey (malice) |
PArties lived in adjoining semi-detached houses. D was annoyed by music lessons given by C. D in retaliation banged on party-walls, beat trays and shouted. Noises made by D were not of a legitimate kind and D was held liable. Permanent injunction was imposed on C so she could only give lessons at certain hours |
|
Hollywood Silver Fox Farms (malice) |
D fired gun with aim of upsetting C's (sensitive) silver foxes. This caused animals to abort and devour their young. D held liable for acting maliciously cf. abnormal sensitivity. |
|
Bradford Corporation v Pickles (intentional interference) |
D reduced water supply to C's land with intention to prompt C to purchase his land at a suitably high price. HL said D's conduct was lawful |
|
Overseas Tankships and Cambridge Water (remoteness) |
is the harm of a reasonably foreseeable type? |
|
Hunter v Canary Wharf (who can sue) |
Claimant must have a right in or over the affected land. |
|
Who can be sued |
The person causing the nuisance, the occupier of the land or the occupier's landlord |
|
Smith v Scott (who can be sued) |
Nuisance was caused by tenants. The landlord was not held liable, this was because he had put in a covenant causing the family were not to create a private nuisance |
|
Coventry v Lawrence (who can be sued) |
Landlords will be held liable for a private nuisance created by their tenants where they have authorised the interference or directly participated in it. |
|
Standard of liability |
material damage invokes essentially strict liability whereas amenity interference involves a balancing of competing interests (the law is tempered). |