click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Tort Law - Nuisance
Nuisance
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What is private nuisance? | unlawful interference with the use/enjoyment of land or rights over it |
| Hunter v Canary Wharf | To sue, one must have a legal interest in the land |
| Who can be sued? | Creater/occupier/owner/controller of the nuisance |
| Network Rail v Williams | japanese knotweed - can't sue for economic loss, but the basis that it interferes with enjoyment of property |
| What is the three part test for nuisance? | (1) Damage (2) Foreseeability (3) Unreasonable/substantial (if amenity) |
| St Helen's Smelting Co. v Tipping | pollution produced from a factory damaged plants |
| Cambridge Water v ECL | Not foreseeabnle that chemicals from tannign leather company would leech into water supply |
| Walter v Selfe | damage must be substantial and 'materially interfering with the ordinary comfort...' outlined factors such as noise, smell, dust |
| who said 'give and take... live and let live' when describing what is 'reasonable'? | Baron Bramwell |
| What are the reasonableness factors? | Locality, Time of day, Method, Frequency, Malice, Sensitivity, Continuing a nuisance |
| Sturges v Bridgeman | Locality, coming to a nuisanse is no defence, prescription (only starts when it becomes a nuisance) |
| Hirose Electrician v Peak Ingredients | Restaurant produced curry/garlic odours, but reasonable due to locality |
| Ball v Ray | Stables in a residential area produce a bad smell, and locality makes it less reasonable |
| Halsey v Esso | Esso trucks often operate at night. Frequency/Time of Day factors make it unreasoable |
| Leeman v Montagne | Method: loud cockerel is a nuisance, but its easily avoidable so less reasonable |
| Andrea v Selfridge | Duration/Frequency is low because they only build it once, so more reasonable |
| Christie v Davey | Malice of retaliation makes it less reasonable |
| Pusey v Somerset | Sensitivity: Layby complaint |
| Robinson v Kilvert | Sensitive paper made it more reasonable - wouldn't have harmed normal business |
| Leakey v National Trust | Continuing a Nuisance - didn't stop the inherited nuisance |
| What are the defences to nuisance claims? | Statutory Authority, prescription, not coming to the nuisance |
| Allen v Gulf Oil | Oil refinery granted permission from parliament - SA defence |
| Coventry v Lawrence | planning permission isn't statutorty authority, however changes locality making it more reasonable |
| Wheeler v Saunders | Pig Farm: Planning permission isn't statutory authority |
| Describe the defence of statutory authority | parliament has granted permission for your activities |
| Describe the defence of prescription | if the nuisance has been accepted for 20 years, you can't bring a claim and challenge it (starts when it becomes a nuisance) SvB |
| What are the possible remedies for nuisance claims? | Injunction, or abatement (compensation) |
| Shelfer v City of London Lighting | "injunctions are the usual remedy for nuisance" |
| kennaway v Thompson | partial injunction awarded (speedboat racing) |
| What was the remedy awarded in Coventry v Lawrence? | injunction to the times the speedway track is in use |
| When may abatement be awarded? | where there is utility |
| Delaware v Westminster Council | claimant removed tree roots himself which were breaking tiles. Abatement awarded as a remedy |