Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
private nuisance - Coggle Diagram
private nuisance
-
-
Duration - the longer something lasts, the more likely it is to become unreasonable
Frequency - the more times something happens, the more likely it is to become unreasonable
-
-
Use and Enjoyment
-
Causing poor TV reception is not a nuisance - doesn’t interfere with use or enjoyment of land - problem with modern day views?
-
-
- Nature of the area - “locality”
-
-
-
- Deliberate/revenge - “Malice”
If D knows he’s doing something bad or has an unpleasant motive, that makes the behaviour unreasonable, even if D was provoked by C’s own nuisance
-
Christie v Davey (1893)
First person to make noise was a music teacher - Christie - students made annoying loud noises as they weren’t very good
-
D made loud noises as a “tit-for-tat” in response to C’s loud noise - D lost his own claim and C won against D - “two wrongs do not make a right”
-
Interference
-
Injury to a person will not give rise to a claim for nuisance - confirmed by HoL in Transco v Stockport MBC (2004)
Cs should use trespass to the person, intentional indirect harm or negligence
In cases where there is actual damage to the land (plants growing on it), the claimant will not have to prove unreasonableness - it will be assumed
The worse the effects, the more likely to be unreasonable
-
If physical damage is caused the interference will automatically be seen as unreasonable, though a defence could still apply (if there is a public benefit)
-
- How likely - “Foreseeability”
If D should have known that his behaviour was very likely to interfere with C’s land, that is unreasonable.
If D couldn’t have known, his behaviour is reasonable.
-
-
-
-
Indirect
When the interference is not indirect it will not give rise to a claim in nuisance but may amount to another tort
-
-