Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Private nuisance - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997): The claimants claimed for damages: in nuisance for interference with television signals caused by the erection of the Canary Wharf tower, and in negligence and nuisance for dust created by the construction of the link road in the area. The Court of Appeal dismissed the action relating to the interference to television signals because, on the facts, the interference was not capable of being a nuisance. The action relating to the dust was allowed to proceed. On appeal, the House of Lords considered two questions: 1) Is interference with television reception capable of amounting to an actionable nuisance? 2) Is it necessary to have an interest in the property affected to claim in private nuisance? If so, what interest? A majority of the House of Lords held that it was necessary for the claimant in a nuisance action to prove an interest in the land affected. This established that this tort is one that is against the land. Occupation of the property as a home was not sufficient to bring a claim. An action in nuisance can be brought by the owner or tenant or by a person who enjoyed exclusive possession but lacked an proprietary interest. A licensee without exclusive possession cannot bring a claim; in this instance, spouses and children of tenants of a property affected by the dust that had become a nuisance did not have a successful claim.
  - - - Tetley v Chitty (1986): Residents in a town complained about the noise coming from a go-karting track that could be heard in their houses. The local council had granted planning permission for the track on its land and had granted a lease to a go-karting club. The council was no longer in occupation of the land, the club was. However, the council was made liable, because excessive noise was a foreseeable consequence of the use for which the land had been let.
      - Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan (1940): Without the defendant's permission, and technically while trespassing, a local council laid a pipe in a ditch on the defendant's land. The workmen involved did not place a grid near the mouth of the pipe to prevent leaves blocking it. The defendant was aware of the trespass and the ditch was cleaned out twice a year. Some years later, after a heavy rainstorm, the pipe became blocked and caused flooding on the claimant's land. The defendant was liable for the nuisance because they were aware of its presence, and therefore should have taken reasonable steps to prevent it.
- - - - a vital element, a property owner in the middle of a city cannot reasonably expect the same peace and quiet as someone living in the countryside. One use of land may be reasonable in once are but not another, this doesn’t apply where physical damage to property is caused by the interference, a localities character can change when planning permission is granted, meaning an activity that might have been considered unreasonable before could now be considered reasonable.
      - St Helen's Smelting v Tipping, Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd
    - - The longer the duration of the interference the more likely is it to become a nuisance, liability can still be found for short interference if it causes substantial harm, defendant could also be liable in nuisance for one-off interference with the use of claimants land
      - Bolton v Stone
    - - abnormal sensitivity is not taken into account in either a person or person's property. Defendant won't be responsible for damage caused to another person's property that occurred due to is unusual sensitive character. If its proved that the defendant had interfered with their right to the ordinary enjoyment of their land, they can claim protection from any other problems caused by the unusual sensitivity. Claim be unsuccessful if the interference in enjoyment to land would not have affected or disturbed ordinary, healthy people.
      - Robinson v Kilvert
    - - generally motive not important, but it can become relevant in the tort nuisance when the court is considering the reasonableness of a person's activity on their land
      - Christie v Davey