Nuisance & Trespass

Private Nuisance

Definition

• Private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable indirect interference with the claimant’s land or enjoyment of it.

Establishing a Claim

1. Claimant's Status: Is the claimant an owner or tenant?

2. Defendant's Role: Is the defendant the creator or authoriser of the nuisance?

3. Nature of Interference: Was there an indirect interference with the claimant’s use or enjoyment of the land?

4. Damages: Did the interference cause damage or discomfort to the claimant?

5. Defence: Does the defendant have a valid defence?

   • There can be liability in nuisance, no liability, or no claim at all.

Key Cases:

1. Malone v Laskey (1907)

   • Facts: The claimant, allowed to live at a property without tenancy, was injured when the water reservoir dislodged due to vibrations from a neighbouring property.

   • Judgment: No claim; the claimant had no interest in the land.

   • Principle: Only those with a proprietary interest can claim.

2. Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)

   • Facts: Claimants claimed nuisance due to a tower blocking their television signal and dust from construction.

   • Judgment: 1. No actionable nuisance for TV interference. 2. A person must have an interest in property to claim.

   • Principle: Claimants need to have ownership or exclusive possession.

3. Goldman v Hargrave (1967)

   • Facts: A defendant failed to extinguish a fire on their property, which spread to the claimant's land.

   • Judgment: Yes, there was a duty to extinguish the fire.

   • Principle: Duty to prevent naturally occurring dangers.

4. Leakey v National Trust (1980)

   • Facts: Soil fell from the defendant’s land, leading to land collapse onto the claimant’s property.

   • Judgment: Yes, the defendant had a duty to address the falling soil.

   • Principle: Awareness of danger necessitates prudence in removing it.

5. Tetley v Chitty (1986)

   • Facts: A council granted planning permission for a racetrack that caused excessive noise.

   • Judgment: The council was liable despite not occupying the land.

   • Principle: Authorisers of a nuisance can be held liable.

6. Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)

   • Facts: The defendant’s drain flooded the claimant’s land.

   • Judgment: Liable due to awareness and failure to act.

   • Principle: Parties allowing a nuisance can be liable.

Factors in Determining Unreasonable Interference:

1. Locality: Contextual factors based on location; different standards of reasonableness in urban vs. rural areas.

   • Key Cases: St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping (1865), Sturges v Bridgman (1879).

2. Utility: The social usefulness of the activity causing interference.

   • Key Cases: Adams v Ursell (1913), Bellew v NI Cement Co Ltd (1948).

3. Sensitivity: A party’s abnormal sensitivity may lead to failure of the claim.

   • Key Cases: Robinson v Kilvert (1889), McKinnon Industries v Walker (1951).

4. Duration: Length of interference; short but damaging events can still constitute nuisance.

   • Key Cases: Harrison v Southwark and Vauxhall Water Co (1891), Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks (1996).

5. Malice: Intention can influence claims; malicious actions could lead to liability.

   • Key Cases: Christie v Davy (1893), Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett (1936).

6. Intensity: Excessive levels of activity can constitute nuisance.

   • Key Cases: Farrer v Nelson (1855).

Defences:

1. Prescription: Nuisance can be actionable for 20 years without complaint.

   • Key Cases: Sturges v Bridgman (1879), Coventry v Lawrence (2014).

2. Statutory Authority: Activities authorised by legislation may not incur liability.

   • Key Cases: Metropolitan Asylum District v Hill (1881), Allen v Gulf Oil Refining (1981).

Trespass to Land

Definition

• Trespass to land involves entering another's land without permission or exceeding the limits of permission.

Establishing a Claim

1. Involvement of Land: Does the claim involve land?

2. Possession: Is the land in the claimant’s possession?

3. Interference: Has the defendant interfered with the land?

4. Directness of Interference: Was the interference direct?

5. Defence: Does the defendant have a valid defence?

   • Potential liability for trespass may exist or there may be no liability.

Key Cases:

1. Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd (1978)

   • Facts: The defendant flew over the claimant’s land to take aerial photographs.

   • Judgment: Lawful; over ordinary use of the land.

   • Principle: Certain heights of flight do not result in trespass.

2. Anchor Brewhouse Developments Ltd v Berkley House Ltd (1987)

   • Facts: A crane’s arm invaded the claimant's airspace.

   • Judgment: Unlawful; constituted a trespass.

   • Principle: Physical encroachments into airspace can be a trespass.

3. Star Energy Weald Basin v Bocardo SA (2010)

   • Facts: The defendant drilled oil beneath the claimant’s land without permission.

   • Judgment: Yes, this was unlawful.

   • Principle: Rights extend below ground.

Key Concepts:

• Possession of Land: Excludes those without direct ownership.

• Direct Interference: Must be physical; indirect interference can lead to nuisance claims.

• Intentionality: The defendant must intend the act; a mistake may not constitute a defence.

Defences

1. Necessity: In some scenarios, trespassing is justified by necessity.

   • Key Cases: Esso Petroleum Co v Southport Corp (1956), Rigby v CC Northamptonshire (1985).

2. Justification in Law: Certain actions may be permissible under legal authority.

3. Licence: Permission can negate trespass unless boundaries of permission are exceeded.

4. Jus Tertii: Rarely applicable, where the land belongs to another.

Remedies for Trespass

• Damages: Indemnify the claimant for losses.

• Injunctions: To prevent recurring trespass.

• Re-entry and Ejectment: For recovery of land and removal of trespassers.

• Mesne Profits: Recover profits taken during the unlawful occupancy.

Evaluation:

• Both areas of law offer mechanisms for protecting land use but can present inconsistent applications often based on locality and social standards.

• The understanding of complaints relies on balancing rights to enjoy property and the community's interests.