1/3
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
Moving to nuisance
D argues that nuisance existed when C came to the land and this amounted effectively to consenting to it - Miller v Jackson established that this is not a defence although may be considered for remedies
Social utility
D argues that nuisance amounts to public benefit and should be exempt Bellew v Cement Co again Miller v Jackson established that it’s not a defence but can be considered for remedies
Prescription
D argues they’ve acquired the right to commit nuisance Sturges v Bridgman However activity must last for at least 20 years and amounted to an actionable nuisance for at least that long Coventry v Lawrence
Statutory authority
Will provide defence to actionable nuisance unless it can be avoided by use of reasonable care and skill Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Co but cannot be defence to nuisance outside the scope of authorised activity Barr and others v Biffa waste services