Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
~law~
NUISANCE
unit 4 (RYLANDS V FLETCHER
a bringing on to the land…
~law~
NUISANCE
unit 4
PRIVATE NUISANCE
-an indirect interference
-the interference was unreasonable
-the interference restricted the claimants enjoyment of their land
indirect interference
meaning that the interference doesn't directly enter or damage a persons property
Dunton V Dover District Council 1977
- were playing in a playground opposite and old person's home
- the noise was seen as an indirect interference
- granted a partial injunction, meaning that the park would be closed at 6 every day
Bone V Seal 1975
- pig sties were extended towards the claimants house
- the smell was seen as an indirect interference
- the defendant was found liable for nuisance
Thompson-Schwab V Costaki 1956
- the sight of prostitutes and their entering and leaving of the claimant's neighbouring premises lead to a private nuisance
Hunter v Canary Wharf 1997
- built a large tower for commercial and residential purposes
- the tower interfered with the reception of BBC for several hundred homeowners claiming that before the tower was built the reception was good
- held that:
-there's no tight of action in nuisance for interference with the TV reception
-an interest in property is required to bring an action in nuisance
-
defences
-prescription-
if a nuisance has existed for 20 years then there is said to be a prescriptive right to continue the nuisanceSturges v Bridgman 1879
- because the confectioners had been there for over 20 years they were able to use thee defence of prescription
-consent-
if the claimant at an earlier time consented to a specific action it cant later be claimed as a nuisance Miller v Jackson 1977
- cant be a nuisance if is useful to the area
-statutory authority-
being given authority by government to use the land in a specific irrespective of whether it causes a nuisanceAllen v Gulf Oil refining
- the defendants were given authority acquire land and to use it to build and run refinery oil
- claimant argued that the noise, smell and vibration were a nuisance
- court held that they could use the defence of statutory authority and that the grant of planning permission would be a defence aswell
remedies
-damages-
- special damages which are easy to calculate
-awarded for pecuniary loss e.g/ property damage
- general damages which are hard to calculate
-awarded for non-pecuniary e.g/ pain and suffering
-abatement-
- self help to stop nuisance e.g/ trimming back trees
-injunction-
- total injunction
-completely stopping the nuisance
- partial injunction
-stopping the nuisance at specific times
PUBLIC NUISANCE
-the action must affect the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of people
-the person claiming must have suffered damage over and above that of the general public
-
cases
A-G v Orange Productions
- traffic disruption and noise from a badly organised festival
Rose v Miles
- a traffic queue on a road that seemed to be caused by road works
remedies
-injunction-
- stop the nuisance continuing
-damages-
- special damages which are easy to calculate
-awarded for pecuniary loss e.g/ property damage
- general damages which are hard to calculate
-awarded for non-pecuniary e.g/ pain and suffering
RYLANDS V FLETCHER
- a bringing on to the land accumulating
-of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes
- which amounts to a non natural use of the land
- and it escapes and causes damage
Rylands v Fletcher 1868
- "if anyone for their own purposes, brings on to land, stores and keeps there anything that might be likely to do mischief if it escapes he must keep it at his peril and if he does not do so his prima facie liable for all the damage caused if it escapes"
-
bringing on to the land
Dunne v North Western gas board 1964
- the thing brought on to the land must've been brought on for the defendants purpose
Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co(Leicestershire)Ltd 1918
- the thing brought on to the land does not have to be the thing that escapes and causes mischief
Pontardawe RDC v Moore-Gwyn 1929
- if the thing is already naturally present then there is no liability
non natural use of land
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc 1994
- some activities may always lead to potential danger so amounts to non natural use
Charing Cross Case 1914
- the volume, size or quantity of the substance can effect whether it is a natural use
must actually escape
Transco pls v Stockport MBC
- the claimant requires a proprietary interest in the land