Private Nuisance Flashcards

(24 cards)

1
Q

Define Private Nuisance

A

An unlawful (unreasonable) interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What 3 things need to proven

A
  1. Interference with the use or enjoyment of land
  2. Damage to the claimant that was foreseeable
  3. The interference is unlawful unreasonable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q
  1. Interference with the use or enjoyment of land Hunter v Canary Wharf
A

Blocking TV reception. Their use was interfered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q
  1. Damage to the claimant that was foreseeable
A

Causation and was reasonably foreseeable.
Often indirect,noise,smells but can alsobe physical

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q
  1. Damage to the claimant that was foreseeable Sturges v Bridgeman
A

Noise and Vibrations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q
  1. Damage to the claimant that was foreseeable ST Helens Smelting v Tipping
A

Smoke and fumes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q
  1. Damage to the claimant that was foreseeable Bliss v Hall
A

Smells

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q
  1. Damage to the claimant that was foreseeable Halsey v Esso Petroleum
A

Smells and physical damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

6 factors to determine unreasonableness

A
  1. Sensitivity
  2. Locality
  3. Locality/Planning Permission
  4. Duration
  5. Time
  6. Malice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q
  1. Sensitivity Robinson v Klivert
A

Delicate brown paper dried out, overly sensitive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q
  1. Sensitivity contrast Mckinnon Industries v Walker
A

Sensitive orchids were damaged by fumes and gas- normal enjoyment was infringed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q
  1. Locality Sturges v Bridgeman
A

Stated a nuisance in Belgrave square nice houses would be
but Bermondsey area of industry not be

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q
  1. Locality St Helens Smelting co v Tipping
A

Industrial area, damaged by copper fumes. However physical damage cannot be involved for locality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q
  1. Locality Murdock v Glacier Metal Co
A

Droning noise from factory prevented someone from sleeping. Not a nuisance as the house was near a bypass and no one else complained

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q
  1. Locality/Planning Permission Gillingham BC v Medway
A

Planning permission- create commercial port

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q
  1. Locality/Planning Permission Wheeler v Saunders
A

Pig farmer, expanded two more pig houses, smelly. Did not change nature of the neighbourhood, liable despite planning permission

17
Q
  1. Duration De Keysers Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros
A

Injunction granted to prevent building work even though it was tempory

18
Q
  1. Duration Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks
A

20 minutes of fireworks would not be nuisance

19
Q
  1. Time
A

2am more likely than 2PM

20
Q
  1. Malice Christie v Davey
A

Music teacher, teaching in his house, d deliberately banged trays to get him back

21
Q

Who can be sued

A
  1. Creator of the nuisance
  2. Occupier of the land
  3. Owner of the land
    Tetley v Chitty- local authority put go kart on land
22
Q

Not a defence

A
  1. Who was there first
  2. Care and skill
  3. Public benefit
23
Q

Defence

24
Q

Remedies

A
  1. Abatement- self fixing
  2. Damages
  3. Injunctions- prohibitory and mandatory