Nuisance

Question 1

Private Nuisance (basic definition)

Answer 1

Where D unreasonably interferences with C’s reasonably enjoyment of his/her land

Question 2

Environmental Protection Act 1990, part III, particularly sections 79 and 80

Answer 2

Statutory nuisance (not to do with tort)

• local authorities can issue a notice for nuisance created
• if party does not comply with the notice then party commits an offence

(a provision for appeal too)

Question 3

Public nuisance

Answer 3

A BROAD CRIMINAL OFFENCE

An unlawful act or omission, which endangers the life, safety, health, property, or comfort of the public

e. g. pollution or roadblock
- prosecution left to public bodies (remedies usually a criminal fine, or injunction if it is on-going)

Question 4

Civil Liability in Public Nuisance

Answer 4

a private individual can sue under public nuisance if she/he suffers “special damage” (damage above and beyond damage suffered by public at large)

Question 5

Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby

Answer 5

(children born with defects because mother lived in area of pollution)

• can bring a claim for special damage as a result of public nuisance
• useful because sometimes damage is not to land, but physical damage etc.,

Question 6

A TORT AGAINST LAND

Answer 6

Hunter v Canary Wharf
- CLAIMS by people who did not have exclusive possession failed
(HL affirmed the important rule that only people with exclusive possession can sue (still good law today)

Question 7

REASONABLE USER

Answer 7

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd

• as a matter of law a person is allowed to put a building on his/her land
• so that is reasonable

Question 8

How do we decide if it is unreasonable? (list)

Answer 8

INTENSITY
DURATION
TIME OF DAY
TEMPORARY
SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS

Question 9

Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board

Answer 9

social expectations are considered (this is a case where TV interference did not count as interference, it is just recreational)

• but in Hunter TV interference counts as nuisance (20 years later)

Question 10

LOCALITY

Answer 10

St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping

• LOCALITY is NOT relevant to physical damage to property
• locality is only relevant if nuisance is causing physical discomfort to people wanting to use/enjoy the land
• claim here is about physical damage to property (plants) so locality was not taken into account
• allowing C to win

Question 11

Sturges v Bridgman (locality)

Answer 11

CA made a contrast between standard a person is entitled to expect in a residential vs. commercial area

Question 12

Lawrence v Fen Tigers (locality)

Answer 12

more helpful to think of PATTERN OF USES

• sometimes no “essential nature”
• might be a mixture
• so no need to decide one or the other

Question 13

Sturges v Bridgman (coming to the nuisance)

Answer 13

Does it make a difference that defendant was there first?

NO DEFENCE TO NUISANCE
- doesn’t matter who was there first (irrelevant)

Question 14

Miller v Jackson

Answer 14

CA says it is nuisance even though D was there 100 years or so and C just built the house

Question 15

Lawrence v Fen Tigers (coming to the nuisance)

Answer 15

SC recently affirmed Sturges (no defence of coming to the nuisance)

LORD NEUBERGER - unless there has been a change to the use of the land by C (i.e. D stays the same, but C changed his use of the land)

Question 16

Robinson v Kilvert

Answer 16

SENSITIVE CLAIMANTS

• no defence for sensitive claimants (don’t consider it)

Question 17

Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris

Answer 17

SENSITIVE CLAIMANTS (current leading case)

• all comes down to reasonableness and foreseeability
• so doesn’t matter whether or not C’s use was extraordinary
• if D had a way of knowing C’s use then that’s foreseeable and can be considered

Question 18

Christie v Davey

Answer 18

malice on the part of D is determinative of the outcome
(is considered)

• music teacher case

Question 19

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

Answer 19

D’s malice/motive made a difference - it makes it a nuisance

CONFIRMED RELEVANCE OF NUISANCE

Question 20

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 20

Lord Cooke (dissent) – this relevance of malice would be a general principle in law of nuisance

• If you put up a structure to annoy a neighbor = nuisance
• This is sort of a support for general principle of malice but this was a dissent speech

Question 21

Bradford Corp v Pickles

Answer 21

HL rejected this argument – said D is entitled to do what he wants!

Motive is irrelevant (doesn’t matter that his motive was malicious)

• this case is probably specifically about rules with interference with the flow of water

Question 22

Bamford v Turnley

Answer 22

PUBLIC BENEFIT = DOES NOT COME INTO THE DELIBERATION

Question 23

Dennis v MOD

Answer 23

PUBLIC BENEFIT DOES NOT ENTER INTO THE Q OF WHETHER C SUFFERS FROM UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE WITH LAND

(in this case it was nuisance though)

Question 24

Allen v Gulf Oil Refinery

Answer 24

statutory authority is a complete defence in nuisance

Question 25

Lawrence v Fen Tigers (planning permission)

Answer 25

- PP is not like statutory authority (not a defence) - Planning permission might change the feel of the locality (i.e. changing area from predominantly industrial or predominantly residential) Generally PP is not relevant in assessing nature of locality unless it has very specific instructions (Neuberger) PP is relevant if it is strategic (Carnwarth)

Question 26

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan

Answer 26

D IS LIABLE FOR CONTINUING THE NUISANCE (even though he didn’t put the grill there) D knew, or ought to have known, the problem but didn’t do anything to prevent the spread to C’s land

Question 27

Leakey v National Trust

Answer 27

CA APPLIED DENFIELD PRINICPLE If D knew of potential problem which did materialise, D is liable D is only required to take reasonable steps though (if it was an overpowering natural force - D is fine)

Question 28

Coventry v Lawrence (no.2)

Answer 28

Landlord's liability is less extensive than liability for continuing a nuisance Landlord is liable in two situations 1) Landlord directly participated in creation of nuisance 2) landlord could be taken to have authorised the nuisance by letting the property to this particular tenant

Question 29

Hussain v Lancaster City Council

Answer 29

(local authority housing - racist tenants beat up C shop owner) - council were not liable - liability in nuisance is about the way people use their land

Question 30

Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council

Answer 30

(travellers in Ds land trespassed on C's land) - C won! - nuisance emanated from D's land - different with Hussain is probably the fact that here, D wasn't a landlord

Question 31

St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping

Answer 31

Fault is irrelevant because liability is strict for the creation of nuisance

Question 32

Goldman v Hargrave

Answer 32

in adopting/continuing a nuisance - fault is relevant (necessary for D to either know, or ought to know, that nuisance is taking place) take into account when assessing amount of expected from D: 1) amount of effort D would need to make 2) financial resources

Question 33

Leakey v National trust

Answer 33

Obiter: Troubled by “financial resources” section of Goldman Interpreted this to mean “broad assessment” They were very resistant to the idea that there should be a close analysis of wealth/spare resources of D

Question 34

Delaware Mansions v Westminster CC

Answer 34

you can recover compensatory damages for reduction in value AND Cost of remedial work

Question 35

The Wagon Mound (NO.2)

Answer 35

RULE: Reasonably foreseeable kinds of damage are recoverable in private nuisance

Question 36

Kennaway v Thompson

Answer 36

injunctions are NOT ALL OR NOTHING CA granted injunction limiting number of races (focusing on races with bigger engines)

Question 37

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company

Answer 37

Traditionally, courts very reluctant to refuse injunctions ONLY REFUSED IF: Injury to C’s rights were small Injury was capable of being estimated in money It would be adequately compensated by money It would be oppressive to grant an injunction

Question 38

Lawrence v Fen Tigers (injunctions)

Answer 38

SC CALL FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY (don’t follow Shelfer slavishly)