Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Nuisance - Coggle Diagram
Nuisance
Reasonableness Test
Locality of premise, tenant of a house above a club cannot complain about communal singing
Nature of nuisance, high pitched whining less tolerable than low hymm. Should consider the sensitivity of the plaintiff as opposed to defendant’s conduct. Robinson v. Kilbert, damage due to sensitivity of plaintiff’s paper rather than defendant’s activity, so no nuisance
Frequency of nuisance, more frequent less tolerable
Duration of nuisance, how long interference lasted
-
By permitting nuisance to continue after being made aware is sufficient for liability, Hu Su Chu v. Wee Ek Chian
Cheang Peng Yew & Anor v Lim Chong Lin, the defendant performs religious rituals twice to thrice a week at his flat, including an immense amount of incense paper and joss sticks, chanting mantras loudly and inviting several people for the purposes of the same. The incense smoke was beyond what was reasonably tolerable. The chanting of prayers by the defendant and his son during rituals produced an unbearable volume of noise. The large number of visitors generated “immense human traffic” along the common corridor and loitering
Public Nuisance
Public nuisance refers to the defendant’s interference with the reasonable comfort of a section of the public, of which the plaintiff is also a part.
In other words, Public nuisance is any act or illegal omission that causes common injury, danger, annoyance to the public or which causes injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who use a public right
As it involves the public, this form of nuisance could also amount to an offence under s. 268 of the Penal Code
-
Examples: Loud noises, air pollution, storing dangerous explosives
Unlike private nuisance, does not involve any rights over land, plaintiff does not need to show legal interest in the land
Plaintiff must be able to show that the damage he suffered is different or greater in extent from others in the section of the public who were also affected by the defendant’s action.
In addition to the two elements above, for a private individual or entity to commence an action in public nuisance they must first seek the permission of the Attorney-General. This is as required under Order 15 r 11, Rules of Court.
Private Nuisance
-
Do not need to trespass on land, defendant just uses his land in a way that adversely affects plaintiff’s enjoyment of his own land
EG: Blasting music such that neighbours next door has their lives disrupted, is a private nuisance because it diminishes the usefulness and hence his peaceful enjoyment of the neighbour’s land, not because the neighbour is annoyed
To sue someone for private nuisance, plaintiff needs to prove he has a legal interest in the land
-
Malone V. Lasky, wife of tenant could not be a plaintiff to the action for nuisance. She did not have sufficient legal interest. Occupying the property as a home is not enough, need to own it or is a tenant or is one who enjoys exclusive possession over the land
-
Introduction
Besides trespass, nuisance is another tort that *involves land
The tort of nuisance tries to balance the rights of neighbours and members of the public to their respective activities and a person’s right to use and to quiet enjoyment of his land without interference
Nuisance is a tort attached to a person’s land not the person themselves, someone irritating you, tort of nuisance would not be a recourse for you
Remedies
-
Plaintiff can claim for:
Diminution in the value of the property or the comfort and enjoyment of it, burning incense sticks makes potential buyer of unit to offer unattractive sum
Consequential damage, loss of profit as neighbour’s welding turns customer away
Property damage, tree branches from neighbour shatter your window
Reasonable remedial expenditure, sum of money to cut tree branches that encroached on your land
-
-
To succeed in an action for nuisance, plaintiff needs to establish
-
Such interference was unreasonable, reasonableness test applied
Defendant’s use of their own land need not be unlawful, but considered a private nuisance when the consequences extend to that of their neighbours, resulting in interference with their neighbours’ comfortable and convenient enjoyment of their own land.
Hunter v. Canary Wharf, Lord Hoffman “in actions for nuisance, one should not try to distinguish between material injury or damage done to the property”