Private Nuisance Cases

Hunter v Canary Wharf (1996)

Facts:

Cs claimed interference with TV signal resulting from construction in Canary Wharf

Law:

HoL stated person must have legal interest in land in order to bring a claim of nuisance, Cs who don’t own/are tenants of property can’t claim.

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)

Facts:

A pipe was installed on D’s land. Pipe became blocked and leaked, damaging D’s land

Law:

D liable despite not installing the pipe as they aware of the problems with the pipe

Tetley v Chitty (1986)

Facts:

C sued council for noise caused by local go-kart club

Law:

Council liable as they leased land for that purpose

Halsey v Esso Petroleum (1961)

Facts:

D owned oil depot, oil tankers coming and going 24/7

Law:

Nuisance as depot located in middle of housing estate so was interfering with sleep of residents.

St Helens Smelting v Tipping (1865)

Facts:

C complained about fumes from D’s metal works affecting C’s property

Law:

Nuisance as physical damage was caused to property despite being in a highly polluted area

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks (1996)

Facts:

D’s firework display caused fires on C’s boats from debris

Law:

Nuisance as there was physical damage even though display was short

Murdoch v Glacier Metal (1998)

Facts:

C kept awake by constant noise from D’s factory

Law:

No nuisance as there was also noise from nearby road, factory noise doesn’t interfere with any other noise

Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity (1965)

Facts:

C’s TV signal transmission interfered with by D’s overhead cables

Law:

No nuisance, power cables wouldn’t interfere with ordinary user of the land. Interference with activities only unlawful if they affect ordinary use in regards to sensitivity.

McKinnon v Walker (1951)

Facts

-Gas leaked from Ds factory

-C ran plant nursery, orchids damaged by gas

Held

-Despite orchids being unusually sensitive, gas leak would have affected ordinary flowers

-Unlawful interference

-D liable for full extent of the loss even though full extent is due to extra sensitive nature

Dennis v Ministry of Defence (2003)

Facts

-Ds enjoyment of country house affected by noisy RAF jets flying above

Held

-Damages awarded instead of induction as flights were necessary, so nuisance was social utility

-Social utility affects remedy given

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)

Facts

-D shot near fox farm after disagreement with owner

-Caused foxes to miscarry

Held

-Not usually nuisance but is in this instance as it was done with malice so unlawful

Christie v Davey (1892)

Facts

-C gave piano and singing lessons in house

-D annoyed by lessons so made loud noises to try and stop them

Held

-Unlawful as Ds activities done deliberately to disrupt and upset (malice), court awarded injunction

Allen v Gulf Oil (1891)

Facts

-Oil refinery causing nuisance to neighbours with fumes and noise

Held

-Built under powers in Act of Parliament so defence of Statutory Authority applied

Sturges v Bridgeman (1879)

Facts

-D built consulting room in garden next to confectioner

-Noise from confectioner interfered with ability to see patients

Held

-Doctor has a claim

-Not a defence that C came to the nuisance

-In regards to a locality of a nuisance - “what may be a nuisance in Belgrave in square would not necessarily be one in Bermondsey” meaning that it has to change the character of the area

Miller v Jackson(1977)

Facts

-Cricket played next to Cs house

-Ball occasionally lands on Cs property

-C sought injunction

Held

-No injunction as interest of community outweighed minor inconvenience to C

Kennaway v Thompson (1981)

Facts

-Ds powerboat club organising more frequent races with noisier boats

-Caused nuisance to C

-D claimed that activities were of great interest to public so only damages should be awarded

Held

-Substantial nuisance

-court imposed partial injunction to limit number of races

-D can’t make unlawful activity lawful by paying large sum of money

Malone v Laskey

Wheeler v Saunders

Fearne v Tate Galleries