Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
NUISANCE - Coggle Diagram
NUISANCE
Seen as a strict liability tort
- Rule in Rylands v Fletcher = private
-
-
-
‘a person who for his own purpose brings on his lands and collects and keeps there something likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie responsible for all the damage which is the natural consequences of its escape’
-
Need to show an accumulation to something on the land – was not already on the land but bought by the D
-
-
-
REASONABLE USER TEST
- Distinguishing between the concept of reasonableness used in negligence is on the defendant’s conduct
- Focus on nuisance is on the consequences of the defendant’s conduct
- Fearne v Tate Gallery [2020] - visitors can see into the apartment – decided that looking into a property is not private nuisance unless you enter it
APPLYING THE TEST
- Firstly identify whether the alleged interference constitutes either a material harm nuisance or an amenity nuisance
- Amenity nuisances are those which cause sensible personal discomfort e.g bad smells, loud noises
- Williams v Network Rail [2018]
FACTORS:
- Locality – only applies to amenity nuisances – St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping [1865] - character of the neighborhood - Coventry v Lawrence [2015]
- Duration and frequency of D’s activity – commonsense meaning – special rule regarding one-off incidents: SCM v Whittal [1970]
- Utility of the D’s activity - Dennis v MoD [2003] - courts rarely use this
- Abnormal sensitivity of the claimant - robinson v kilvert [1889] - relates to the way in which they use their land
- Malice – stronger factor – christie v davey [1893] purposely annoyed claimant during music lessons
-
PRIVATE NUISANCE
- ‘an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land’
- An intolerable interference
- Emphasis on ‘the law of give and take’
- Personal injury not recoverable – Hunter v Canary Wharf
ESTABLISHING TITLE TO SUE
- Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] - TV connection was lost around - C must have a legally recognized interest - could not equal to actionable nuisance – if there was personal injury damage it would be negligence not nuisance
- Must prove damage to the property but this can also include the prevention of the owners enjoyment of the property
- Delaware v Westminster [2001] - coming to the nuisance is not a defence
WHO CAN BE SUED?
- Creator of the nuisance
- Occupier who continues a nuisance
- You were aware that there was a nuisance on your property that was affecting others but did not try and stop it
- Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan - apply a subjective test on the circumstances - blocked pipe caused flooding – employees knew about the potential block so duty was breached as did not try to prevent it
- Leakey v National Trust – D did not prevent the landslide so was liable
Liability of landlords for authorizing a tenant’s nuisance
- Telley v chitty
- Coventry v Lawrence – noise nuisance for only 16yrs not 20 so prescription defence would fail
- Smith v scott – nuisance was anti-social behaviour – action was taken against the landlord for housing a family that were known for anti-social behaviour – but the family would have to go somewhere so would only transfer the nuisance elsewhere
REMOTENESS
- doesn’t come into play until going through the reasonable user test
- Cambridge water v Eastern leather [1994] - chemicals contaminated the water source which was used by neighbors so had to change their source – was seen that the pollution was not foreseeable = D was not liable
- – remoteness applies – put restraints onto Rylands
- Harm would have to be foreseeable
REMEDIES IN NUISANCE
- Injunction – D is forced to stop the activity immediately – this can be problematic as can be oppressive
- Damages – Dennis v MoD = better for defendants as RAF would have had to stop using airspace
- Abatement – take it into your own house and fix it yourself = rarely used
DEFENCES
- Statutory authority – Allen v Gulf Oil [1981]
- Prescription – needs to have been a nuisance for 20yrs – Sturges v Bridgman [1879] - although the noise was going on for 20yrs it was only a nuisance since he moved his office closer to the noise
- Coming to the nuisance is not a defence – if there is knowledge