Nuisance

General definition

Always a dispute between neighbers

Definition in law

"A unlawful and indirect interference with a person’s use and enjoyment of land coming from the neighbouring land"

3 Key aspects

• A right to bring an action

• indirect interference

• unlawful

Right to bring an action

Aright to bring an action

Have to have an interest in the land. Hunter V Canary wharf

The D will either be the:

• Creator Thomas v NUM

• Landlord Tetley v Chitty

• Occupier Seclleigh v O’Callaghan

Hunter v Canary wharf

MUST have an interest in the land

Thomas v NUM

Creator

Tetley v Chitty

Landlord

Seclleigh v O’Callaghan

Occupier

Indirect interference

Indirect interference

Physical damage - No requirement, but if present it will strengthen the claim

Loss of amenity - lost ability to enjoy land (can be anything that you were once able to do)

Types of indirect interference:

• Smell - Adams v Ursell

• Noise/light/ dust/ vibrations Halsey v Esso

• Sex shop - lows v florinplace

• Natural incidents - Leakey v National trust

• TV reception - Hunter v Canary wharf

• Cliff subsiding - Holbeck v Scarborough BC

• noisy neighbours - Coventry v Lawrence

• Being overlooked - Fearn v Tate modern museum

Adams v Ursell

Smell

Halsey v Esso

Noise/light/ dust/ vibrations

lows v florinplace

Sex shop

Leakey v National trust

Natural incidents

Hunter v Canary wharf (interference)

TV reception

Holbeck v Scarborough BC

Cliff subsiding

Coventry v Lawrence

noisy neighbours

Fearn v Tate modern museum

Being overlooked

Unlawful

In all of the circumstances and judged objectively (based on the reasonable person) is the interference reasonable?

• Mere interference isn't enough southwalk LBC v Mills

To judge if the interference is reasonable, you can look at the following factors:

• Locality Sturges v Bridgman (what you would expect to be in that area, eg. trucks in a industrial area would not qualify but trucks in a rural area would qualify)

• duration crown river cruises ( the longer the interference the more likely it is to be successful)

• sensitivity of the land. If the claimant has brought something sensitive onto the land that is damaged by the interference they can only claim if there is also general damage.

• sensitivity of the C. If the claimant is particularly sensitive it is unlikely to amount to a nuisance (sensitivity refers to things such as being prone to headaches andlight hurting them/giving them headaches ) Network rail v Morris

• malice. Hollywood v silver fox farm (acted out of malicious reasons) Christie V Durey ( if the claimant does something maliciously to get back at the claimant, they can be sued

• benefit of the community. Miller v Jackson (successful in negligence but not in nuisance as the court said that a-lot of people use the cricket ground)

southwalk LBC v Mills

Mere interference isn't enough

Sturges v Bridgman

Locality (what you would expect to be in that area, eg. trucks in a industrial area would not qualify but trucks in a rural area would qualify)

crown river cruises

Duration ( the longer the interference the more likely it is to be successful)

Network rail v Morris

sensitivity of the C. If the claimant is particularly sensitive it is unlikely to amount to a nuisance (sensitivity refers to things such as being prone to headaches and light hurting them/giving them headaches )

Hollywood v silver fox farm

malice (acted out of malicious reasons)

Christie V Durey

( if the claimant does something maliciously to get back at the claimant, they can be sued) malice

Miller v Jackson

benefit of the community (successful in negligence but not in nuisance as the court said that a-lot of people use the cricket ground)

Defences

• Prescription

• local authority and planning permission

• statutory authority

• moving to the nuisance

Prescription

The defendants activity has been occurring for 20 years or more without any problem. If the D’s activity has been going on for more than 20 years the interference becomes lawful. It has to be between the 2 parties for  to be actionable. If they can prove that the defence will be successful. The 20 years starts from then the C moves into the property Sturges v Bridgeman

Sturges v Bridgeman

Prescription

local authority Planning permission

general rule is that just because the defendant has local authority and Planning permission doesn’t mean that it will work as the defence.

Wheeler v Saunders

general rule is that just because the defendant has local authority and Planning permission doesn’t mean that it will work as the defence.

statutory authority

An act that allows for the nuisance Allen v GOR

Allen v GOR

An act that allows for the nuisance

Moving to the nuisance

This is not a defence. If the D argues that the C moved to the nuisance it will always fail. Sturges v Bridgeman

Sturges v Bridgeman

If the D argues that the C moved to the nuisance it will always fail.

Remedies

Remedies

• Compensation

• injunction

• Abatement

Most people will want an injunction but if damages is more appropriate they will be awarded Coventry v Lawrence

Coventry v Lawrence

Most people will want an injunction but if damages is more appropriate they will be awarded