Private nuisance

Define private nuisance

An unlawful intereference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land

Who can claim

Hunter v Canary Wharf - C must have an interest in the land or legal interest in the land

C must prove that D’s activity amounts to an unlawful use of land

Who can be sued

Person whom causes/allows nuisance Tetley v Chitty or their successor whom have allowed the nuisance Bybrook Barn Garden center v Kent CC
If occupier ‘adopts’ the nuisance aka failing to deal with problem even if caused by previous owner,natural cause or trespasser Leakey v National Trust

How is it established whether D’s act is unlawful

The question of whether in all of the circumstances is it reasonable for C to have to suffer this particular interference

What did R v Tate Modern establish

unlawful means unreasonable

What are examples of nuisance

Flooding Sedleigh- Denfield
Smells Wheeler v Saunders
Noise Kennaway v Thompson
Encroachment Lemmon v Webb
Sports Miller v Jackson
Physical damage St Helens Smelting v Tipping
Courts are ready to protect offensive behaviour which affects character of neighbourhood or behaviour Thompson-Schwabb

What can’t a claimaint claim a right to

A view Fern v Tate Modern
Light
TV reception Hunter v Canary Wharf

What are the 4 factors of reasonableness that are considered

Locality Hirose elec v Peak ingredients
Duration De Keyser Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros
Sensitivity Mckinnon inc v Walker
Malice Emmet v hollywood silver fox farm

Locality

Character of neighbourhood will be considered
Court will consider whether it’s
- purely residential
- partially residential and partially commerical
- situated in town or country
- has changed in character over time through eg planning permission

Duration

Interference likely to be continuous or during unreasonble hours of the day Crown river cruises v Kimbolton fireworks
One off events are unlikely to be nuisances
The longer the nuisance lasts the greater the interference but temporary activity may still amount to nuisance

Sensitivity

If C or their use of land are particulary sensitive then D won’t be liable unless act would be a nuisance to a reasonable person using the land normally - however the law is moving away from abnormal sensitibity to foreseeability Network rail infrastructure v Morris

Malice

Delibrate harmful act will be considered a nuisance