nuisance cases

Question 1

leakey v national trust

Answer 1

d owned land and could see that there was a potential for a mudslide which could damage c’s cottage which it did. Held they knew the possibility and failed to act- adopted the nuisance

Question 2

anthony v coal authority

Answer 2

coilery was bought by Anthony, a fire started through spontaneous combustion which lasted 3 years causing fume and smoke interference from those living nearby. Held he had adopted the nuisance

Question 3

hunter v canary warf ltd

Answer 3

people living in London when the canary Warf tower was being built which interfered with their TV reception, held recreational facility was not sufficient interference and not all the claimants owned or rented the land

Question 4

mpson v schwab v costakis

Answer 4

the c of a decided that the running of a brothel in a respectable residential area amounted to a nuisance

Question 5

laws v foirnplace ltd

Answer 5

an injunction was awarded where a shop was converted into a sex shop

Question 6

crown river cruises ltd v kimlbleton fireworks ltd

Answer 6

a river badge was set alight by flammable debris from a fire work display which lasted 20 minutes the display amounted to an accountable nuisance- very rare occasion, usually continuous

Question 7

?

Answer 7

C stored brown paper, the heat of the basement, caused the loss of value of the paper. Held that the paper was delicate the heat would not be a nuisance to the ordinary person therefore the claim failed

Question 8

network rail v morris

Answer 8

c ran a recording studio which a train line interfered with their amps. Held the equipment was sensitive and the ordinary person would be fine therefore the claim failed

Question 9

hollywood silverwood fox farm v emmet

Answer 9

c bred foxes, d had an argument and decided to fire shots into c’s land which scared the foxes into not breeding. Held it was deliberate and an unreasonable act

Question 10

christie v davey

Answer 10

c was a music teacher and had music parties. D was annoyed so responded by banging on the wall. Held an injunction was granted due to it being malicious- the banging

Question 11

miller v jackson

Answer 11

balls were being hit into the millers garden the cricket club offered to build a high fence and to instruct the players to hit low. Judge was in favour of the club as it benefited the community and outweighed the private use of the miller’s garden

Question 12

sturges v bridgeman

Answer 12

d lived and worked next to a factory. The doctor built an extension consultation room which was disrupted by vibrations. Held although the surgery was there for 20+ years the extension had not been- no defence

Question 13

allen v gulf oil refining

Answer 13

d’s operating a refinery had been given statutory authority to build the site but not to uses it. Held parliament intended for them to also use it therefore anyone affected could not claim

Question 14

marcic v thames water plc

Answer 14

due to problems c’s house was flooded with sewage water multiple times. The water act has excluded private nuisance for flooding

Question 15

GBC medway dock co

Answer 15

planning permission was granted to use a dock for commercial use near a rural village and changed into a residential area, held because the permission had changed the character of the place what would used to be a nuisance (lorry’s) could now be considered reasonable

Question 16

wheeler v saunders

Answer 16

pig farmer was granted to extend, this meant they were close to c’s house causing smell and noise, held the extension did not change the characteristics of the local area

Question 17

watson v croft promo sport

Answer 17

owned motor racing track, opening for 210 days per year. C claimed for noise. D argued that they had changed the characteristics of the area but c of a said the area remained rural and gave them an injunction to only open for 40 days per year

Question 18

Coventry v Lawrence

Answer 18

c near a racetrack, which was opening more often than was
originally said. Held the supreme court said damages may be considered as a remedy
in nuisance if an injunction will lead to the loss of jobs