Private Nuisance

Private nuisance

An unlawful indirect interference with a persons use or enjoyment coming from neighbouring land

Bamford v Turnley

created the definition of Private nuisance

Claimant in private nuisance

must have a legal interest in the land

Hunter v Canary

case established that the claimant must have a legal interest in the land

Defendant in private nuisance

whoever is responsible for the nuisance - they can also adopt the nuisance. Also counts if they did not sort out the known issue.

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

case established that the defendant doesn’t have to create the nuisance they can adopt the nuisance from the previous occupants

Leakey v National Trust

principle: if the defendants knew about an issue and did not sort it out or fix it, they are liable of private nuisance

unlawful interference

unreasonable activity or state of affairs on a defendnat’s land that causes substantial interference with the claimants use or enjoyment of their own land

Fearn v Tate Gallery

created the test for unlawful interference

1. substantial interference: based off what the reasonable person would consider to be substantial (Tejani v Fitzroy)

2. Impacts the ordinary use of land: must be excessive and not what is usual on that land (southwark v Mills: steps and toilets flushing not abnormal)

indirect interference examples: Loss of Amenity

• fumes from neighbouring land: Bamford v Turnley

• smell from farm animals: Wheeler v JJ Saunders

• noise: Kennaway v Thompson

• emotional distress: Laws v Florinplace

• excluded: rights to TV signal: Hunter v Canary Wharfddddd

indirect interference: material damage

• fire and flooding

• vibration from machinery: Sturges v Bridgman

• Hot air rising into other premises: Robinson v Kilvert

• Cricket balls: Miller v Jackson

Sturges v Bridgeman

C, a doctor, lived next to a factory. He built a new consulting room at the end of his garden but then complained of vibrations coming from the factory. The owner argued there had been no issue for the twenty years he had owned it. The defence of prescription failed her as the nuisance only began once the consulting room was built not the 20 years before that.

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

A river barge was set alight by a firework from a twenty minute show. It was held that the show was enough to amount to private nuisance as it had caused damage to property. Otherwise the short duration of the show would have made it insufficient for private nuisance.

Network Rail v Morris

C owned a studio for music. A new railway line was built near it and it interfered with the amps in the studio causing him to lose business. Where there is very sensitive equipment it cannot be forseeable for the company that the building of the line would cause a tort in this way. Not liable.

Christie v Davey

The claimant was a music teacher who held lessons and parties. In retaliation the defendant had banged pots and pans. The defendant was liable as the noise was made maliciously and with full intention of causing tort.

Bamford v Turnley

In this case D was operating a brick kiln in his back garden and the fumes it produced were going into C’s garden and making them ill. This case defined private nuisance as ‘An unlawful indirect interference with a persons use or enjoyment coming from neighbouring land’.

Fearn v Tate Gallery

The Tate opened a new viewing gallery was opened allowing people to see directly into nearby glass apartments. This case was brought as a loss of privacy. The supreme court found them liable and came up with key points from it to define PN.

1. A violation of real property

2. Loss of an essential element but highly elastic

3. Nuisance can be caused by an omission or positive activity

4. The broad unifying principle is reasonableness between neighbours

Hunter v Canary Wharf

The claim was brought by the owners family against a construction company for obscuring their TV signal. Two things were decided here:

1. The claimant must have the proprietary interest in the affected property

2. The nuisance cannot be something trivial like TV, the loss must be clearer

Tetley v Chitty

D set up a go kart track and were found liable for it. This was in spite of them not owning the land, but the ruling here was that a defendant does not need a proprietary interest they just need to be causing the nuisance

Tejani v Fitzroy

C claimed a loud noise was causing him to lose sleep. When the noise was measured it was very quiet about the same as a ticking clock. This was ruled to be insufficient for ‘unlawful’. The definition of ‘unlawful’ is a nuisance that a substantially unreasonable. NOT ILLEGAL.

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

Monks moved onto land with a ditch already present. They did not fill in the ditch. The ditch then caused flooding in the adjoining property. The monks were liable under the principle of adopted nuisance

LBC Southwark v Mills

C claimed insufficient soundproofing in his flat meant he could hear others walking around. This was not ‘unlawful’ as walking around your flat is an ordinary use of the property and not substantially unreasonable

Types of indirect interference

Amenity: the pleasantness of the place. This includes smell, noise, or fumes and is harder to prove

Material: where the dangerous state of affairs causes significant physical damage to the adjoining property.

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

The smell from a pig sty D had on his farm was a nuisance for the C. This set a precedent that smell is enough for PN. Furthermore, D had been given planning permission to expand and argued this as a defence. However planning permission is only a defence if its effect was to change the character of the neighbourhood which was not the case here so it failed.

Miller v Jackson

C had moved in next to a cricket club and was then hit by a ball. C claimed but the social benefit of the club reduced the compensation they could get. However, the fact C moved into the nuisance is irrelevant and not a defence.

Allen v Gulf oil refinery

Statutory Authority is where government state has given permission for something to be build and operated. This is a strong defence as statute can invalidate nuisance claims. Here statute had granted permission to build the refinery but not to operate it in any specific way so the claimants coming to court that the operation was causing nuisance was valid.

Remedies in Private Nuisance

An injunction to stop something or move something can be served alongside or independent from damages that can be claimed for having that nuisance for example with damage to the land that will cost money to repair.