Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Private Nuisance - Coggle Diagram
Private Nuisance
Key terms:
Indirect Interference: interference is directly caused by the actions of the defendant e.g. noise - Christie v Davey
Unreasonable interference: defendants activity goes beyond acceptable behaviour - Southwark London Borough Council v Mills
-
-
Defendant: can be the...creator/authoriser/adopter of nuisance - Tetley v Chitty, Sedleigh-denfield v O'callaghan
Unreasonable interference and factors considered by the court:
when deciding whether the interference is a nuisance, the court will apply a reasonable test
Locality:
element is vital when the courts are deciding whether the activity is nuisance. property owner in the middle of a city cant reasonably expect the same peace and quiet as someone who lives in the countryside
specific use of land may be reasonable in one are but not in another - rule does not apply in cases where the interference causes physical damage to the property
character of locality can be changed when planning permission is granted - e.g. east end of london was an industrial area originally but was redeveloped so that london could host the 2012 olympic games - means that activity which might have been considered unreasonable before the change occurred is now considered reasonable
Duration:
the longer the interference continues, the more likely it is to be a nuisance. however, there can be liability for a short interference if it causes substantial harm
in Crown river cruises ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks - unreasonable interference only lasted a short period of time - but there was an actionable nuisance because of the amount of damage caused
a defendant may be liable in nuisance for a one-off interference with the use of the claimants land
Sensitivity:
law does not take into account abnormal sensitivity in either a person or that persons property
as a result, the defendant will not be responsible for damage caused to another persons property that occured only because of its unusually sensitive character
claimant will not have a successful claim if the interference in enjoyment to land would not have affected or disturbed ordinary, healthy people
as soon as the claimant has proved that the defendant has interfered with their right to the ordinary enjoyment of their land, they can also claim protection from any other problems caused by an unusual sensitivity
Malice:
in tort, the defendants motive when doing something is not important - however , it can become relevant in tort of nuisance when the court is considering the reasonableness of a persons activity on their land
behaviour that is motivated by malice may make an otherwise reasonable act into a nuisance
Nature of Liability:
Private nuisance has been defined as the substantial and unreasonable indirect interference with the claimants land or with their enjoyment use of it
in order for the claimant to succeed there must be 3 elements:
- must be an indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land or property
- interference must be unreasonable
- interference must have caused damage
Indirect interference:
interference can come from sources e.g. smoke, smells, noise, vibrations or water
Unreasonable interference:
person is able to do what they want on their own property as long as the activity doesnt interfere with anothers enjoyment of their land
law works on basis that there must be give and take between neighbours
an unreasonable interference goes beyond acceptable behaviour so not every activity or interference will be a nuisance
Damage:
interference must have caused material damage - damage must be more than trivial. this is usually discomfort or interference with use of land but it can also be actual physical damage to property
personal injury is not usually recoverable in nuisance as this is covered by the tort of negligence
personal discomfort is measured by reference to the standards of an ordinary person who might occupy the claimants property
where interference causes discomfort rather than physical damage, the court will apply a reasonableness test to decide if there is an actionable nuisance
since case of Hunter v Canary Wharf the court will concentrate on damage to land itself rather than the landowner. this means that the landowner must find a way of demonstrating how their land has been affected by the unreasonable activity
Parties to the case:
Who can sue?
Claimant must have a propietary interest in the land, so only the owner or tenant of the land can sue for nusiance - confirmed in Hunter v Canary Wharf
Who can be sued?
the people who can be sued are in one of 3 categories:
- creator of nuisance: even when they no longer occupy the land from which the nuisance originates - an occupier is liable for nuisances created by themselves and employees but not generally liable for independent contractors or trespassers.
if an occupier becomes aware of a nuisance arising out of a natural condition on their land, must take positive action to prevent it
- person who authorises the nuisance - such as the person was successfully sued in Tetley v Chitty
- anyone who adopts the nuisance - person may be sued as they have allowed the nuisance to carry on - Sedleigh-denfield v O'Callaghan
Defences
Prescription:
in a claim for private nuisanece it will be a defence to show that the nusiance had been actionable (capable of being claimed for) for 20 years and the claimant was aware that it had affected their interestduring that time
so if an activity continues for 20 years this will legalise any potential nuisance
in sturges v bridgman the defence failed because the from the sweet makers activities only become a nuisance when the doctor extended his consulting room - 20 years began to run from that date - it is not enough for a defendant to show that the activity has been carried on for 20 years - interference must have been actionable as a nuisance for that period of time
Statutory Authority:
if an act of parlaiment authorises the defendants activity, the defendant will not be liable for interferences of enjoyment that an inevitable outcome of that acitivity
inevitable outcome is one that cant be avoided by use of skill and care by defendant
this tort attempts to balance the rights of a person to use their land as they want with the claimants right to enjoy their land without interference from others
involves situations where a person has been unable to enjoy their property because of another persons activity. activity could range from a neighbour who is making too much noise to one who is polluting the environment