Private Nuisance

Question 1

PN

Answer 1

action can be taken under when there has been an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land. If nuisance causes damage to property, the courts will favour the C (St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping)- it is always unreasonable to use land in a way that damages another person’s property.

Question 2

Claimant

Answer 2

A person with an interest in the land e.g. owner or tenant. Their use of enjoyment is affected by interference. Interference must be indirect as opposed to direct interference. Visitors to the property cannot generally make a claim under private nuisance (Malone v Laskey)

Question 3

Defendant

Answer 3

D is the person who is causing or allowing the nuisance. D does not need to have an interest in the land e.g member of owners family. This could be local authority (Tetley v Chitty)
Occupier can still be liable even if they did not create the nuisance but they fail to deal with it. Could be something that a trespasser or previous owner did (Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan)
Natural causes cause nuisance (Leakey c National Trust)

Question 4

UF: locality

Answer 4

The character of the neighbourhood will be considered to establish if the nuisance is ‘reasonable’ e.g residential, commercial/industrial. What may be considered a nuisance in 1 area may not be a nuisance in another (Sturges v Bridgeman)

Question 5

UF: frequency and duration

Answer 5

Must be continuous to be unreasonable. It must also be at an unreasonable time of the day e.g loud noises at night are more unreasonable than during the day (Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd)

Question 6

UF: sensitivity of C (land use)

Answer 6

It is not reasonable to hold D liable it C is sensitive (Robinson g Kilvert). The courts will look at if the interference is reasonable (Network rail infrastructure v Morris) is the use of land of C (rare fish) abnormal? Would it affect reasonable person?

Question 7

UF: Social benefit

Answer 7

If the nuisance is one which is for the social benefit, the courts may not consider this a nuisance (Miller v Jackson)

Question 8

UF: motive/ malice

Answer 8

If D deliberately does something harmful, this is likely to be considered unreasonable (Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet)

Question 9

Defence: prescription

Answer 9

A right to commit the nuisance is acquired if it has been carried out openly and continuously and without permission for 20 years. Only works if the activity has been a nuisance for 20 continuous years to the claimant, not just generally (Sturges v Bridgman)

Question 10

Consent

Answer 10

If the claimant has consented to the nuisance they cannot then complain about it. Must be genuine

Question 11

Moving to nuisance

Answer 11

The idea that someone who moves into an area where a nuisance already exists cannot complain. BUT not a defence in law (Miller v Jackson)

Question 12

Statutory authority

Answer 12

If Parliament has authorised an activity any nuisance rising from it may be lawful (Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd)

Question 13

Planning permission

Answer 13

Does not by itself authorise a nuisance. But it can affect whether something is consider e as a nuisance if it changes the character of locality (Wheeler v Saunders)

Question 14

Remedies

Answer 14

Injunction- court tells to stop ot limits
Damages- if injunction is unreasonable. Financial compensation to claimant for harm caused by nuisance.
Abatement- self-help remedy. C takes upon themselves to stop nuisance. Must be reasonable and without causing unnecessary damage. Often involves giving notice to defendant before acting (Lemmon v Webb)