Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PRIVATE NUISANCE (Unlawful interference (Abnormal sensitivity (Robinson v…
PRIVATE NUISANCE
Unlawful interference
Lack of care
Has D taken reasonable precautions to ensure that what they are doing is done in the most considerate way possible
-
Abnormal sensitivity
Robinson v Kilvert
If the damage only occurs to C or C's land because it is abnormally sensitive, there will be no nuisance
McKinnon
If a non-sensitive C would have suffered some damage, then there could be a nusiance
-
-
-
Motive/intention
If D is doing something in order to intentionally cause a nuisance to C, the courts are more likely to find it unreasonable or unlawful
-
Duration and frequency
The longer the interference and the more frequently it occurs, the more likely the courts will find it a nuisance
Bolton v Stone
Only happened a few times in 30 years - frequency so low therefore unlikely to be a nuisance
Parties
Malone v Laskey
C must have some sort of proprietary or possessory interest in the land, need to show sufficient interest in the land in order to bring a claim
-
-
If creator cannot be found or does not have any money:
Matania
Can sue the occupier of the land even if they are not creating the nuisance
Leakey v National Trust
Occupier liable if they adopt or continue the nuisance created by nature
Tetley v Chitty
Landlord is liable if they expressly/impliedly authorised the nuisance, they knew or ought to have known about the nuisance before letting
-
-
Defences
Prescription
If D carried on an activity for 20 years or more with the knowledge of C and they have not raised a complaint within those 20 years
Statutory authority
Where the state authorises the activity (planning permission not enough)
Allen v Gulf Oil
Act of a stranger
The occupier was not aware that the nuisance was happening on their land - an unknown third party has caused the nuisance
Introduction
Read v Lyons
'Unlawful interference with the use or enjoyment of another's land or some right over or in connection with it'
Can only claim for:
-Actual damage to property
Lemmon v Webb
-Interference with enjoyment of the land (personal discomfort)
Other issues
Bellew v Cement Co
There was a benefit to the public being the only cement factor in Ireland - if thing is being done for the benefit of the public damages remedy is more likely to be damages
Miller v Jackson
Cannot argue that one party got there before the other - 'I got here first' will not be successful
-