Private Nuisance

STEP 1:

DEFINITION

Unlawful, indirect interference with a person’s use and enjoyment of land (or rights over that land)

STEP 2:

WHO IS THE CLAIMANT + WHY

• C needs proprietary interest in the land to sue the owner (not family members etc), e.g Hunter v Canary Wharf, challenged by McKenna v British Aluminium

• Tetley v Chitty- LANDLORDS

• Leaky v National Trust- OCCUPIERS

• Sedleigh-denfield v O’Callaghan- IMPACT OF TRESPASSER

Failure to deal with the nuisance can lead to D ‘adopting’ it (even if not responsible)

• Anthony v Coal Authority- AUTHORISER

STEP 3:

WHO IS DEFENDANT + WHY

• CREATOR- Bybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd v Kent Council

• LANDLORDS- Tetley v Chitty

• OCCUPIERS- Leaky v National Trust

• IMPACT OF TRESPASSER- Sedleigh-denfield v O’Callaghan

Failure to deal with the nuisance can lead to D ‘adopting’ it (even if not responsible)

• AUTHORISER- Anthony v Coal Authority

STEP 4:

INDIRECT INTERFERENCE

Direct is usually from trespass rather than nuisance.

Smells- Adams v Ursell- chip shop smell was a nuisance

TV Reception: Hunter V Canary Wharf- a ‘thing of delight’ is not actionable in nuisance (TV signal not essential to living)

Noise/Dust/Heat/Light/Vibrations: Halsey v Esso Premium- all of these are nuisances

Natural Accidents: Leakey v National Trust- liable if they are hazardous and D was aware and failed to act

Blocked drains: Sedleigh-denfield v O’Callaghan

Brothel: Thomas-Schwab v Costaki

Noisy Neighbours: Coventry v Lawrence- planning permission for noise, so no claim

STEP 5: Unlawful

Actual damage = always nuisance

No physical damage = is the use reasonable?

Sensitivity- Robinson v Kilvert: deemed unforeseeable, so therefore unreasonable and Network Rail v Morris

Exception- only in cases where ordinary enjoyment is affected will it be reasonable for nuisance to be applied (garden plants killed)

Locality- St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping- personal discomfort can not be disputed, however damage to property can be

Sturges v Bridgeman- area was known to be quiet so nuisance was a damage to enjoyment of land

Duration: Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks- one-offs only liable if actual damage is caused

Malice- Christie v Davey- malicious motive mad D’s conduct unreasonable

Social Benefit: Miller v Jackson- D providing community benefit so action may seem reasonable

STEP 6:

CAUSATION

• Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries Leather- if D is using his land unreasonably then the damage caused must be reasonably foreseeable

• NO Liability for P.I- Hunter v Canary Wharf- tort against land, not person