Privte nuisance

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/28

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

29 Terms

1
New cards

Winfield definition

an unlawful indirect interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of their land or rights over it

2
New cards

Step 1:

C must have a legal interest

in the land affected

3
New cards

cannot be a

family member of tenant or personal damage anymore

4
New cards

as in

Malone v Laskey

5
New cards

Step 2:

D must be responsible for the nuisance and

there must be an unreasonable use of land

6
New cards

a) can only claim against the creator of the nuisance

and not against third parties.

7
New cards

b) must be deemed that the use of the land is

unreasonable

8
New cards

the test for reasonableness is

objective and takes several factors into account (5)

9
New cards
  1. Sensitivity of C

Robinson v Kilvert

10
New cards

C made brown paper bags and D’s heater ruined the paper

but failed since C was using the land in an abnormally sensitive way, not impacted by D’s actions

11
New cards
  1. Duration of the nuisance

Halsey v Esso

12
New cards

smell of petrol station held to be actionable as it was

frequent and occurred during the night

13
New cards
  1. Character of the area

St Helens Smelting Co. v Tipping

14
New cards

what is a nuisance in one area

may not be in another

15
New cards

but this will not stop a successful claim where

there is still physical property damage

16
New cards
  1. Malice

Hollywood silver fox farm v Emmett

17
New cards

the intention is relevant

D can be liable if malicious

18
New cards
  1. Social benefit

Miller v Jackson

19
New cards

action may be considered reasonable if D provides a benefit to the community

like the cricket club

20
New cards

Step 3:

Resulting damage

must be reasonably forseeable

21
New cards

Cambridge water Co v Eastern counties leather

chemicals polluting water is RF

22
New cards

DEFENCES:

  1. Prescription

Bliss v Hall

23
New cards

if going on for 20 years

then cannot be liable

24
New cards

coming to a nuisance

is not grounds for a claim but courts will still analyse reasonableness Sturges v Bridgman

25
New cards
  1. Statutory Authority

Hammersmith Railway v Brand

26
New cards

A o Parliment allowed to operate

so not a nuisance

27
New cards
  1. Planning permission

Wheeler v JJ saunders Ltd

28
New cards

from the council but

does not guarantee immunity or authorise nuisance is based on judges decision

29
New cards

only if it changes the nature or locality of an area

Coventry v Lawrence