Nuisance A01

0.0(0)
Studied by 0 people
call kaiCall Kai
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/14

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Last updated 11:21 AM on 4/29/26
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced
Call with Kai

No analytics yet

Send a link to your students to track their progress

15 Terms

1
New cards

Definition

An unlawful indirect interference with another persons use or enjoyment of land or rights over it - Fern v Tate gallery

2
New cards

Claiment

Claiment must have proprietary interest - Hunter v Canary wharfe

Only a tenant or owner of property can sue

3
New cards

Claiment

Claiment must have proprietary interest - Hunter v Canary wharfe

Only a tenant or owner of property can sue

4
New cards

Type of damage

Physical - automatically a nuisence

Indirect

5
New cards

Indirect interference

Interference must be indirect - interference from D’s use and wnjoyment of the land

Some forms will not be protected by the courts :

Right to a view

Right to have television reception- Hunter v Canary wharfe

Right not to be viewed

6
New cards

Unreasonable - Locality

St Helens smelting

Sturges v bridgemen - Whether something amounts to a nusience the court must have regard to its locality

7
New cards

Unreasonable- Malice

Christie v Davey - The defendants actions were motivated by malice and therefore did not constitute a nusience

8
New cards

Unreasonable - Social benefit

Miller v Jackson - If D is providing a benefit to the community this may be a consideration but is likely to have no effect at all.

9
New cards

Unreasonable - Duration

The longer the lasts, the more likely it is to be a nuisance but sometimes a short interference can be a nuisance if it causes substantial harm.

10
New cards

Unreasonable- Sensitivity

If the C’s land/property is particularly sensitive then the interference may not be a nuisance- Robinson v Killvert

11
New cards

Defences - Prescription

if an interference has continued for twenty years or more without complaints D may use the Defence of prescription - Sturges v Bridgeman

12
New cards

Defences - planning premission

Coventry v Lawrence - Where planning premission is given for a development or change of use, the question of nusiance will thereafter fall to be decided by reference to a neighbourhood with that development or use and not as it was previously.

13
New cards

Defences - statutory authority

Allen v Gulf - If parliament has authorised an activity which could amount to a nusience, it will not be actionable as long as D has taken all due care and skill to avoid it

14
New cards

Remedies - Damages

These can be given for any harm or damage or loss of enjoyment

15
New cards

Remedies- injunction

Adams v lindsell the injunction that was granted was worded in such a way that the shop could be set up in a different part of the street where the C would not be affected by the nusiance