Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Private nuisance - Coggle Diagram
Private nuisance
Unlawful interference
Duration
Most nuisances consist of a continuing interference so the claimant seeks an injunction to prevent the reoccurrences. The longer a nuisance lasts the greater the interference and the more likelihood of it being held to be an unlawful interference. Nevertheless, a temporary activity may still constitute a nuisance (De Keysers Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros)
In determining whether or not the use of the land and the interference were reasonable or not the courts will consider
- nature of the locality/ neighbourhood
- duration
- sensitivity
- malice
Sensitivity
If the claimant is abnormally sensitive or their use of land is particularly sensitive, the defendant will not be liable- unless the activity would amount to a nuisance to a reasonable person using the land in a normal manner (Robinson v Kilvert; McKinnon Industries v Walker)
This means an unreasonable use of land by the defendant which leads to an unreasonable interference with the claimants use or enjoyment of their own land (London Borough of Southwark v Mills)
Malice
If the defendants actions are malicious, they are more likely to be held unreasonable (Christie v Davey; Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet)
Locality
The reasonableness of the use of land will depend on the nature of the locality (Hirose Electrical v Peak Ingredients
Planning permission may change the nature of the locality but cannot give permission for a nuisance (Coventry v Lawrence)
Where the nuisance causes physical damage the nature of the locality is irrelevant (St Helens Smelting Co. v Tipping
Overview
In order to bring a claim in private nuisance, a claimant must have an interest in the land in which they claim their enjoyment or use of has been unreasonable interfered with. This means a legal interest, but not necessarily ownership (Malone v Laskey; Hunter v Canary Wharf)
However, the defendant- the creator of the nuisance- does not need to own or occupy the land that the nuisance is emitting from; they just need to have used the land (Jones Ltd v Portsmouth City Council)
The courts attempt to balance the competing right of the land owner to use their land as they choose and the rights of the neighbour not to have their use or enjoyment of land interfered with
Intereferences can be:
- flooding (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan)
- smells (Wheeler v JJ Saunders)
- encroachment (Lemmon v Webb)
- noise (Kennaway v Thompson)
- balls (Miller v Jackson)
- physical damage (St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping)
- a brothel (Thompson-Schwab v Costaki)
Private music ace is concerned with protecting the rights of an occupier against ‘unreasonable interference with the enjoyment or use of his land’. This often involves disputes between neighbours
Foreseeability
-
In Hunter v Canary Wharf, the judges in holding that a claimant must have an interest in the land affected by the nuisance, appear to have ruled out the possibility of a claim for purely personal injury arising from nuisance
The foreseeability of the type of damage is important in clams for nuisance. It applies as it does for claims based in negligence. A key case here is Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather Plc