Private nuisance

Question 1

3 elements required to prove private nuisance

Answer 1

• Indirect interference; noise, smoke, smells
• Unreasonable interference- courts will consider various factors (Southwark London Borough Council v Mils)
• Damage caused by the interference- material and so must be more than trivial, Hunter v Canary wharf- courts will concentrate on damage to land not land owner

Question 2

Who can sue?

Answer 2

Hunter v Canary Wharf confirmed that to sue one must have a propietary interest in the land- owner or tenant
(limits floodgates argument but limits those who suffered damage but cant sue)

Question 3

Who can be sued?

Answer 3

1. Creator of the nuisance
2. Anyone who allows the nuisance- Tetley v Chitty; Noise was a foreseeable consequence of the land they left
3. Anyone who adopts the nuisance (allows it to continue)

Question 4

Locality

Answer 4

Where use of land is reasonable in one area but not in another, this is inapplicable where physical damage has occured

Question 5

Locality- Liability

Answer 5

St Helens smelting v Tipping- Fumes from the factory damaged trees and crops of the claimants land. Despite the area being an industrial one, the physical damage caused made it so there was still liability

Question 6

Locality- No liability

Answer 6

Sturges v Bridgeman- D was liable despite using his equipment for 20 years because the area was dominated by doctors- shows how difficult it is to win a claim in a dominated area

Question 7

Duration

Answer 7

The longer an interference occurs, the more likely it is to be a nuisance. There can be liability for shorter interferences if significant harm is caused

Question 8

Duration- Liability

Answer 8

Crown river cruises v kimbolton fireworks; 20 minute firework show lit a barge on fire so despite duration it was a nuiscance

Question 9

Duration- No liability

Answer 9

Bolton v Stone; Cricket ball was only hit out 6 times in 30 years

Question 10

Sensitivity

Answer 10

Courts dont account for unusual sensitivity (no thin skull rule)

Question 11

Sensitivity- Liability

Answer 11

McKinnon Industries v Walker- All crops were damaged by fumes, not just the sensitive orchids

Question 12

Sensitivity- No liability

Answer 12

Robinson v Kilvert- Normal paper wouldnt have been damaged by the heat and so there was no liability as the brown paper was more sensitive

Question 13

Malice

Answer 13

Behaviour motivated by malice makes an otherwise reasonable act a nuisanceM

Question 14

Malice- Liability

Answer 14

Christie v Davey; D retaliated to a music teachers lessons by banging pots and pans to annoy his neighbours
Hollywood silver fox farm v Emmet; shooting was ordinary but D did it to scare the foxes thus a nuisance

Question 15

Prescription defence

Answer 15

Where an activity takes place for 20 years unactioned, any nuisance is legalised
Sturges v Bridgeman; The candymakers work only became a nuisance after the doctor extended his office and so the 20 years started running from then

Question 16

Statutory authority defence

Answer 16

If an act of parliament authorises a defendants activity, defendant will not be liable for any nuisance that is an inevitable outcome of that activity (cannot be avoided by the use of skill and care)
Allen v Gulf oil refining- Defendant was entitled to statutory immunity in respect of any nuisance they were able to prove inevitable