Privte nuisance

studied byStudied by 0 people
0.0(0)
learn
LearnA personalized and smart learning plan
exam
Practice TestTake a test on your terms and definitions
spaced repetition
Spaced RepetitionScientifically backed study method
heart puzzle
Matching GameHow quick can you match all your cards?
flashcards
FlashcardsStudy terms and definitions

1 / 28

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.

29 Terms

1

Winfield definition

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

New cards
2

Step 1:

C must have a legal interest

in the land affected

New cards
3

cannot be a

family member of tenant or personal damage anymore

New cards
4

as in

Malone v Laskey

New cards
5

Step 2:

D must be responsible for the nuisance and

there must be an unreasonable use of land

New cards
6

a) can only claim against the creator of the nuisance

and not against third parties.

New cards
7

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

unreasonable

New cards
8

the test for reasonableness is

objective and takes several factors into account (5)

New cards
9
  1. Sensitivity of C

Robinson v Kilvert

New cards
10

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

New cards
11
  1. Duration of the nuisance

Halsey v Esso

New cards
12

smell of petrol station held to be actionable as it was

frequent and occurred during the night

New cards
13
  1. Character of the area

St Helens Smelting Co. v Tipping

New cards
14

what is a nuisance in one area

may not be in another

New cards
15

but this will not stop a successful claim where

there is still physical property damage

New cards
16
  1. Malice

Hollywood silver fox farm v Emmett

New cards
17

the intention is relevant

D can be liable if malicious

New cards
18
  1. Social benefit

Miller v Jackson

New cards
19

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

like the cricket club

New cards
20

Step 3:

Resulting damage

must be reasonably forseeable

New cards
21

Cambridge water Co v Eastern counties leather

chemicals polluting water is RF

New cards
22

DEFENCES:

  1. Prescription

Bliss v Hall

New cards
23

if going on for 20 years

then cannot be liable

New cards
24

coming to a nuisance

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

New cards
25
  1. Statutory Authority

Hammersmith Railway v Brand

New cards
26

A o Parliment allowed to operate

so not a nuisance

New cards
27
  1. Planning permission

Wheeler v JJ saunders Ltd

New cards
28

from the council but

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

New cards
29

only if it changes the nature or locality of an area

Coventry v Lawrence

New cards
robot