Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

INTERFERENCE WITH LAND (The rule in Rylands v Fletcher (Transco v…

- - - - Occupier of land / premises from which a nuisance emanates is responsible (e.g. Matania v National Provincial Bank
      - Responsible for act of an employee acting in the course of his employment, but normally not for independent contractor unless got NDD.
      - Where owner given up possession and control (e.g. leased), not responsible unless authorized the nuisance, nuisance existed before lease, or owner had continued control
      - Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan: Where D does not create the nuisance but adopts (makes use of premise which constituted nuisance) or continues (no reasonable means to bring it to an end) it, D is liable only if he knew or ought to have known of the nuisance
      - Natural hazard caused nuisance - duty to act reasonably to prevent / minimize risk of damage which def knew / ought to have known
        Goldman v Hargrave
        Leakey v National Trust: Circumstances include extent of risk, expenditure required to eliminate / reduce danger, financial and physical capacity
      - Where local authorities are involved, the courts are willing to hold them responsible for acts which they have facilitated, even where those acts are committed by persons who are not lawful occupiers of local authority land.
        Lippiat v South Gloucestershire Council: local council who encouraged travellers to camp, facilitated / allowed interference.
        Hussain v Lancaster City Council (criticized): Acts did not involve tenants' use of land (criminal acts of harassment), fell outside scope
  - - - St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping: Traditionally, as long as physical damage not insignificant, claimant likely to succeed without taking into account factors. Here, damaged trees.
      - Hunter v Canary Wharf: 250m tower interfere with TV reception. Mere presence of building was not itself an actionable nuisance. Sensible personal discomfort - part of action which caused damage to land. Need show diminution in value of property. Compensation for damage to chattels (not part of house, v permanent fixtures) only where damage is consequential on property damage.
      - Smith v Inco: Damage must be "material, actual or readily ascertainable".
    - - Locality and nature, frequency and duration of interference
        
        No physical injury / damage + activity only temporary / short duration likely not nuisance (Harrison v Southwark and Vauxhall Water Co)
        
        Halsey v Esso Petroleum: Oil depot from which noise, fumes and smuts emanated was a nuisance in a mixed area of residential and commercial buildings
        
        Change the character of the neighbourhood, e.g. brothel in ‘good class residential street’ a nuisance (Thompson-Schwab v Costaki)
        
        Bank of NZ v Greenwood: light reflected from a verandah was held to be nuisance
        Difference between existence of building (shadow) (not actionable) and things which emanate from it (reflected light)
        
        Tesa Tape v Wing Seng: Containers stacked up to 7 tiers. Mere storage not unreasonable use, but stacking this high was unsafe.
      - Social utility of interference
        
        Several cases say it is not relevant. Don’t want private rights be trumped by communitarian rights? Must say this in exam.
        
        Kennaway v Thompson confirmed social utility generally not relevant.
        Miller v Jackson awarded damages rather than an injunction.
        Antrim Truck Centre v Ontario Transportation: highly beneficial highway did not trump rights of claimant.
      - Def's motive
        
        Christie v Davey: def's bad motive made otherwise acceptable noise actionable
        
        The Mayor, Alderman and Burgesses of the Borough of Bradford: Motives did not render legality of his actions illegal. Def lawfully entitled to do drainage work.
      - Sensitivity / vulnerability of plt
        
        Robinson v Kilvert: exceptional susceptibility of plt’s trade to def’s use of land, ordinary paper would not be damaged.
        
        McKinnon Industries v Walker: If anything ordinary would be harmed, plt's sensitivity irrelevant and plt can claim
      - Practicality of avoiding the interference
        
        Andrea v Selfridge: reasonable steps to reduce interference, many other ways.
      - Sensible personal discomfort in St Helen - Lord Hoffman in Hunter v Canary Wharf stated though land no injury, its "utility has been diminished by the existence of the nuisance"
  - - - Rejected because sometimes don’t know there is nuisance. Even if know, maybe what happens in real life is different from what you expect.
    - - Allen v Gulf Oil: oil refinery authorised by statute.
      - Gillingham BC v Medway: Planning permission for a commercial dock had the effect of changing the character of the area, thus justifying increased traffic.
  - - - No claim for personal injury, only damage to property.
      - Supporting factors in Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company / no injuncton where:
        (a) Injury to plt’s legal rights was small;
        (b) Injury was one capable of being estimated in monetary terms;
        (c) Injury was one that could be adequately compensated by a small money payment; and
        (d) The case was one in which it would be oppressive to the def to grant an injunction.
    - - Halsey v Esso Petroleum: Injunction suspended for a while.
      - Equitable remedy. Discretionary. Balance must be struck (Miller v Jackson). No injunction where... (see above)
    - - Form of self-help, not favoured by courts.