Private Nuisance

Private Nuisance Definition

An unlawful Interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land coming from the neighbouring land

Who can be a Claimaint

Hunter v Canary Wharf - Claimant must have Interest in the land eg owner, tenant

• Cannot be lodgers, family members

Who can be a Defendant

3 cases

The Person Causing or Allowing the Nuisance to exist

Tetley v Chittley - Local Authority who allowed Nuisance to exist was sued

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan - Occupier not responsible for the danger but is aware of it + fails to deal with it can be liable for “Adopting” the nuisance

Leakey v National Trust - Can be someone aware of a nuisance caused by natural causes + fails to deal with it

Leakey v National Trust

D can be liable if aware of a nuisance caused by Natural Causes + fails to deal with it

Reinforced in Anthony v Coal Authority - Failed to stop a natural fire they were aware of

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Claimant is someone with Interest in the land eg owner, tenant

• Cannot be lodgers, family members

Interference with TV Reception is not a Sufficient Interference

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

Defendant can be someone not responsible for the danger but “Adopts” the nuisance by being aware of it + failing to deal with it

• The occupier of the land, a monk, knew about the blocked pipe, allowed it to remain, and did nothing to prevent the flooding

What must be proved for Unlawful

C must prove Ds activity amounts to Unlawful use of the Land

Unlawful = Unreasonable use of land

Indirect Interference

Some things have been held to be a sufficient nuisance eg smell, noise, cricket balls

Hunter v Canary - Interference with TV reception is not sufficient

- Interference with a view or light cannot be protected

Thompson-Schwab v Costaki - Emotional/Moral discomfort can be an Indirect Interference

Thompson-Schwab v Costaki

Causing Emotional/Moral discomfort can amount to an Indirect Interference

Running of a brothel in a Residential Area amounted to a Nuisance

Reinforced in Laws v Florinplace

3 Elements of Private Nuisance

1. Unlawful

2. Indirect Interference

3. Factors of Reasonableness

• Locality

• Duration of the Interference

• The Sensitivity of the Claimant

• Malice

• Social Benefit

Locality

Characteristics of the Neighbourhood is considered eg residential, industrial

Sturges v Bridgman - What would be a nuisance in one neighbourhood may not be in another

Laws v Florinplace Ltd - D opened sex shop in residential area, held to be a nuisance

Laws v Florinplace Ltd

Characteristics of the neighbourhood is considered

Reinforces Thompson v Schwab v Costaki - Causing Emotional/Moral discomfort can amount to an Indirect Interference

• D opened sex shop in Residential area, held to be a nuisance

5 Factors of Reasonableness

Relevant factors are considered when deciding whether Ds use of land was unreasonable

1. Locality

2. Duration of the Interference

3. The Sensitivity of the Claimant

4. Malice

5. Social Benefit

Duration of the Interference

The longer/more frequent, the more likely the interference is unreasonable

Crown River v Kimbolton Fireworks - Event lasting 20 Mins was held to be a nuisance

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

Event lasting 20 Mins was held to be a nuisance

Interference can be one off/short lived

Sensitivity of the Claimant

Robinson v Kilvert - If Cs use of the land is Hypersensitive, Action may not be a nuisance

- Heat from the Basement caused Brown paper above to dry out, losing its value

Network Rail v Morris - If Ds use of land is sensitive Interference Must be Foreseeable

Robinson v Kilvert

If Cs use of the land is Hypersensitive, Action may not be a nuisance

- Heat from the Basement caused Brown paper above to dry out, losing its value

Malice

Hollywod Silver Fox Farm v Emmett - Deliberately harmful act will likely to be considered an Unreasonable Interference

- Shot gun at neighbours animals so they would not breed

Hollywod Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

Deliberately harmful act will likely to be considered an Unreasonable Interference

- Shot gun at neighbours animals so they would not breed

Social Benefit

Miller v Jackson - Interference may be reasonable if D is providing a benefit to the community

- Cricket balls from Cricket club were hit into nearby garden, Held the cricket club outweighed the private use + refused action

Contrasted by Adams v Ursell - Well-used fish and chips shop was forced to close due to smell

Miller v Jackson

Interference may be reasonable if D is providing a benefit to the community

- Cricket balls from Cricket club were hit into nearby garden, Held the cricket club outweighed the private use + refused action

Contrasted by Adams v Ursell - Well-used fish and chips shop was forced to close due to smell

Demonstrates Injunction

3 Defences

1. Prescription - Action has carried on for 20 years with No Complaints

2. Moving to the Nuisance

3. Statutory Authority

Prescriptions

If Nuisance has carried on for 20 years with No Complaint, C loses the right to complain

Sturges v Bridgman - Must be 20 years of the Nuisance, not the activity

Confirmed in Coventry v Lawrence

- Defence failed because the nuisance began when the doctor built his consulting room, not when the factory began operating.

Sturges v Bridgman

3 Points

1. For the Defence of Prescription, The Nuisance must have persisted for 20 years, not the activity

- Defence failed because Nuisance only began when Doctor built his consulting room, not when the factory began operating

2. Characteristics of a neighbourhood is considered in determining whether Interference is Unreasonable - “What would be a nuisance in one neighbourhood may not be in another”

3. Moving to the Nuisance is Not a Defence

Moving to the Nuisance

Not a Defence - Sturges v Bridgman

Statutory Authority

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining - Authority under an Act of Parliament was a Defence

Marcic v Thames Water - If a body is regulated by statute, Complaints can only use the Remedy stated in the statute, not a Private Nuisance claim

Coventry v Lawrence COMPLETE

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining

Authority under an Act of Parliament was a Defence

• Parliament authorised oil company to construct and operate an oil refinery, from which local residents complained of noise, vibration, and smells.

• Nuisance was lawful as it was an inevitable consequence of carrying out the Authorised Activity

Remedies

1. Injunction - Ordering D to stop the Nuisance - Miller v Jackson

2. Abatement - Claimant taking Reasonable steps to stop the nuisance themselves

   • Lemmon v Webb - Held to be lawful to cut off the overhanging branches without notice

3. Damages

Lemmon v Webb

Demonstrates Abatement