Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Nuisance (Private Nuisance (Factors (Locality (If there is physical damage…

- - - - Includes being the owner or tenant
      - Cannot be the family member of an occupier
      - Hunter v Canary Wharf
      - Malone v Laskey
      - Must have a legal interest in the land
    - - Person who is causing/allowing/has adopted the nuisance
      - Do not need a legal interest in the land
      - Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan
      - Tetley v Chitty
  - - - Hunter v Canary Wharf
      - Watson v Croft Promo Sport
  - - - Flood, Vibrations, Sewage, Landslide, soot, fumes
      - Leakey v National Trust
    - - Smoke, noise, small, heat, fumes, dust, cricket balls, sexshop
      - Miller v Jackson - Cricketballs
      - Laws v Florinplace
      - St Helens Smelting v Tipping
  - - - If there is physical damage, it does not need to be taken into account highly (St Helens)
      - Character of the neighbourhood (Halsey v Esso)
      - Belgrave Square and Belmondsey (Sturges v Bridgman)
      - Decided on a case by case basis
    - - The longer it continues, the more likely it is to be unreasonable
      - Likely to be continuous and at an unreasonable hour of the day
      - If there is physical damage, it does not need to be taken into account highly (Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton)
      - Spicer v Smee - Faulty wiring all the time
    - - 'Nuisance by smell/noise is something to which no absolute standard can apply' (Halsey v Esso)
      - Decided on a case by case basis (Halsey v Esso)
      - Must be 'more than fanciful' (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
      - Must interfere with human existence (Walter v Selfe)
    - - If C is particularly sensitive, it may not be nuisance
      - Robinson v Kilvert - Brown paper made worthless by heat
      - NRI v Morris - Recording studio, not forseeable
      - McKinnon v Walker - orchids
    - - Is the activity beneficial to society?
      - Dennis v MOD
      - Miller v Jackson
    - - Deliberate and harmful act will still be nuisance
      - Christie v Davey
      - Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
  - - - Allen v Gulf Oil
      - Authority may be absolute or conditional
      - Planning permission is not automatically a defence (Croft) as it can still be unreasonable
        
        Wheeler v Saunders - Pig farm next to cottage
        
        CA confirmed PP can only be a defence if it's intention was to change the character of the neighborhood
        
        Gillingham BC v Medway Dock - PP changed it from a port to a dock so it was allowed
      - Marcie v Thames water - House flooded with sewage but act said they couldn't be sued
    - - No action for 20 years
    - - Not a defence
      - Bliss v Hall - candle smells
      - Kennaway v Thompson - Built house next to track. Their interests were deemed more important than the public of using the track but it was still allowed on a limited basis
  - - - Only used in appropriate circumstances
      - The Shelfer Test
        
        Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting
        
        Used to decide when damages should be awarded instead of an injunction
        
        1) Injury to C's rights were small
        
        2) Can be reasonably compensated with money
        
        3) Small payment would be adequate
        
        4) It would be unfair to D to impose an injunction
        
        Built on in Coventry v Lawrence, laying down guidance to decide
        
        An injunction is the default
        
        D can argue damages are more appropriate
        
        Shelfer test should not be applied rigidly
        
        An injunction should not automatically be applied even if the test is satisfied
    - - Losses must be reasonably forseeable (Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather)
      - Can be for physical damages or loss of amenity
- - - - There is no miniumum number. It is for the court to decide what is substantial - AG v PYA Quarries
      - 'A public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range... that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility... but that it should be taken on the resonsibility of the community at large' - AG v PYA
    - - Personal injury/physical damage/interference
      - PI not available in private
      - Corby Group v Corby - Not confined to loss of amenity
      - 'Unlawful act/omission which endangers life, safety, health, property or comfort of the public
      - Halsey v Esso - Indirect physical damage
      - Castle v St Augustine Links - Taxi driver
    - - Rose v Miles - Canal blocked