What is the key legal definition of public nuisance from Attorney General v PYA Quarries [1957]?
It is defined as ‘acts or omissions of the defendant that materially affect the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects.’
In what two areas of law can public nuisance be classified?
Public nuisance is primarily a crime, but it can also be a tort in certain circumstances.
Why is public nuisance now considered a ‘residual method’ of dealing with certain interferences?
Because many areas it once covered, like pollution and noise, are now regulated by statute.
In Attorney General v PYA Quarries, what activity by the defendant was held to be a public nuisance?
Dust and vibrations from the defendant’s quarry, which affected over 30 households.
Who are the three potential parties that can sue in public nuisance?
An individual, a Local Authority, or the Attorney General.
In what two situations can a Local Authority sue in public nuisance?
It can sue on its own behalf if it has suffered damage, or in its own name to protect the inhabitants of its area.
What is the name for an action brought by the Attorney General on behalf of a class of people affected by a public nuisance?
A relator action.
What crucial requirement must an individual claimant prove to sue in public nuisance?
They must show they have suffered ‘special damage’.
What is meant by ‘special damage’ for an individual claimant in public nuisance?
Damage suffered over and above the rest of the class, or damage that is different in kind from that suffered by the rest of the class.
According to Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK Plc [2010], what two qualities must ‘special damage’ have?
The ‘special damage’ must be direct and substantial.
How does the requirement for a claimant to have an interest in land differ between private and public nuisance?
Unlike in private nuisance, a claimant in public nuisance does not need to have an interest in the land affected.
In Lyons Sons & Co v Gulliver [1914], what constituted the public nuisance and what was the claimant’s ‘special damage’?
The nuisance was the obstruction of the highway by a queue, and the special damage was the severe disruption to the claimant’s café trade (pure economic loss).
Who can be sued in the tort of public nuisance?
The creator of the nuisance or any person who is ‘responsible’ for it, such as an owner or occupier.
What are the four elements that make up the tort of public nuisance?
(1) Act or omission
(2) One-off event or continuous
(3) Class of His Majesty’s subjects; and
(4) Materially affects comfort and convenience.
Unlike in private nuisance, a public nuisance can be a _____ or isolated event.
one-off
In the context of public nuisance, liability can exist for _____ as well as acts, which can be an advantage over suing in negligence.
omissions
What principle regarding the definition of a ‘class’ was established in Attorney General v PYA Quarries?
There is no exact number of people required; it depends on the facts, and only a representative cross-section needs to be affected.
According to R v Rimmington [2005], what does a ‘class’ of people refer to?
It refers to a ‘section of the public’, ‘the community’, or ‘a significant section of the community’.
What is the ‘common injury’ requirement for a class, as defined in R v Rimmington [2005]?
The class must be affected at more or less the same time and in the same location.
Why were the recipients of racially offensive items in R v Rimmington not considered a ‘class’ for public nuisance?
They were individuals spread across the country and did not suffer a ‘common injury’ at the same time and in the same location.
Which two types of loss are recoverable in public nuisance but generally not in private nuisance?
Damages for personal injury and pure economic loss.
What is the standard required for inconvenience to be actionable in public nuisance, according to Jan de Nul (UK) Ltd v Royale Belge SA [2002]?
The inconvenience must be ‘material’, meaning more than trivial.
In Benjamin v Storr (1873-74), what actions by the defendant auctioneers amounted to a public nuisance against the claimant’s coffee house?
Constant loading and unloading of vans which restricted access and made the coffee house uncomfortable.
What is the test for the foreseeability of damage in public nuisance, as established in Wagon Mound (No. 2) [1967]?
The type of loss must be reasonably foreseeable.
-
Duty of care0
-
Introduction2
-
How to determine whether a duty of care is owed36
-
Liability for omissions19
-
Liability for acts of third parties27
-
Public bodies and duty of care31
-
Week two0
-
Standard of care36
-
Breach of duty34
-
Common practice in the context of professional negligence27
-
Week three0
-
Factual causation ('but for' test)22
-
Factual causation where the 'but for' test cannot be satisfied45
-
Apportionment and multiple sufficient causes24
-
Legal causation40
-
week four0
-
remoteness32
-
consent24
-
contibutory negligence31
-
illegality32
-
remedies43
-
week five0
-
employers' primary liability40
-
vicarious liability33
-
identifying an employment relationship31
-
week six0
-
introduction to psychiatric harm24
-
primary victims24
-
secondary victims41
-
beyond primary and secondary victims20
-
week seven0
-
introduction to pure economic loss36
-
exceptions to the general rule for pure economic loss23
-
pure economic loss caused by negligent statement45
-
week eight0
-
private nuisance elements45
-
private nuisance - defences and remedies36
-
public nuisance30
-
week nine0
-
introduction to occupier's liability (1957 act)35
-
occupier's liability act: breaches and defences40
-
occupier's liability act 198433
-
occupier's liability and exclusion clauses23
-
the rule in rylands v fletcher36
