Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Private Nuisance, Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather - Coggle…

- - - - De Keyser's Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914):
        
        Noisy pile driving at night during temporary building works
        
        Held: considered private nuisance
      - Thompson-Schwabb v Costaki (1956):
        
        CA held that running a brothel in an otherwise respectable residential street can be considered a nuisance.
      - Andrea v Selfridge (1937):
        
        Excessive noise due to demolition works was considered a nuisance
      - Lew Cher Phow & 11 Ors v Pua Yong Yong Pua Keng Siang (2007):
        
        Facts: D installed several CCTV's around his house and 1 camera that overlooked C's house. C complained that it infringed their privacy and enjoyment of their property and claimed Private Nuisance
        
        Issue: Balancing between privacy and safety, courts must be in favour of privacy for this case. Subjecting C's to continuous overt surveillance will mean demeaning the C's
        
        Held:
        
        (a) order directing D to remove the camera and
        
        (b) an injunction to restrain D from installing any CCTV camera's that points into or which is directed at C's house
  - - - Duration and Timing
        
        Nuisance must arise out of a continuing state of affairs and depends on:
        
        Frequency of interference
        
        Magnitude of each interference
        
        Likelihood of future injuries
        
        Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks (1996):
        
        Held that firework display constituted a nuisance, when it was inevitable that for 15-20 minutes flammable debris will fall on nearby property causing damaging the property in the ensuing fire
      - Sensitivity
        
        Robinson v Kilvert:
        
        Facts: C occupied the ground floor of D's premises using it to store brown paper. D carried on in the basement making paper boxes, needing a hot, dry environment. Heat from D affected C's paper and reducing its value. C sued for nuisance.
        
        Held: Court found the paper to be exceptionally delicate. The damage and heat did not inconvenienced any of C's workers = no nuisance.
        
        McKinnon Industries v Walker (1951):
        
        Facts: C's orchids were damaged and his enjoyment to land were affected by fumes and sulphur dioxide gas from D's factory. D said he should not be liable as the orchids were very delicate and the plants were abnormally sensitive.
        
        Held: Court rejected this argument and right to ordinary enjoyment is infringed. C can also claim protection for his unusual and sensitive activities.
      - Locality
        
        St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping Ltd (1865):
        
        Facts: C's estate was situated in an industrial area where fumes from D's factory works will naturally affect C.
        
        Held: HoL distinguished between nuisances causing actual injury to property in this case, causing personal discomfort. C should be prepared to put up with the level of discomfort by choosing that area to reside in. But C did not expect to put up with actual damage to their land so injunction granted.
        
        [When interference with land is reasonable may depend on locality and what is a nuisance in a residential area may not amount to a nuisance in another locality]
        
        Character of a locality can be altered, making activity reasonable when its previously prohibited.
        
        Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co (1993)
        
        Facts: Dock company (D) was granted planning permission for the operation of a port. Access to it is only possible via residential roads that caused lots of traffic noise. Council sued in nuisance to limit traffic at night.
        
        Held: Court held that although planning permission was granted for an activity, it does not mean that the activity will not give rise to liability in nuisance. But the existence of the planning permission will mean that the character of the locality has changed, so what was illegal before can now be reasonable. Thus dock authority not liable for nuisance.
        
        Wheeler v JJ Saunders:
        
        Facts: D owns a pig farm and obtained planning permission to extend it and build 2 pig houses near C's land resulting in strong smells across C's property.
        
        Held: CA held that the planning permission did not alter the character of the neighborhood compared to Gillingham. The planning permission only authorised the expansion of a business. Hence no change in character of the locality, the nuisance of smell is still there, D is still liable.
      - Malice
        
        Christie v Davey (1893):
        
        Facts: C is a music teacher and held musical parties at home. D (being a neighbor) deliberately disturbed C by banging trays and hammering the wall.
        
        Held: D's actions were malicious to C and considered unreasonable and a nuisance.
        
        Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmet (1936):
        
        Facts: C's company is a fox fur farm. D (the adjoining owner) maliciously caused his son to discharge a shotgun on his own land as near as possible to the fox pens to interfere with the fox's breeding season.
        
        Held: C was entitled to an injunction and damages for private nuisance. Even though it was not unreasonable for a farmer to use a shotgun on his own land and keeping of fox fur may not be an ordinary use of land, D acted maliciously.
  - - - Even damage that has not happened yet (risk) can give rise to claim
        
        Network Rail Infrastructure v Williams:
        
        CA found that encroachment of Japanese knotweed onto a property is capable of actionable claim under private nuisance even though no physical damage had been caused yet.
        
        The weed will be difficult to get rid of, its presence will make property difficult to sell.
        
        CA said that risk of future damage imposed an immediate burden on landowners in terms of developing the land.
- - - - Anyone who creates a nuisance, regardless of whether the person owns/occupies the land from which the nuisance originates.
        
        Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area) (1985):
        
        Held that striking miners picketing in the road outside a factory can be liable for private nuisance
        
        Lai Kong Loke & Anor v Ting See Leng
    - - D will often be the occupier of the land where the nuisance originates.
        
        Occupier need not be the owner of the land, if its rented, the tenant will be the occupier = can be sued for creating the nuisance
        
        Matania v National Provincial Bank:
        
        Facts: C's flat was affected by noise and dust from work done by independent contractors in D's flat above.
        
        Held: activities involve special danger of nuisance as it was inevitable they would interfere with C's use of flat unless precautions were taken
        
        Occupiers of land can be liable for nuisance caused on the land by 3rd parties OR
        
        If the occupier is aware of the potential of the nuisance but does nothing to prevent it.
        
        Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan (1940):
        
        Facts: D occupied land where there was a ditch. Local authority built a pipe that took water away from the ditch (this was done without D's knowledge). After some time leaves blocked the pipe. Due to this, neighboring land owned by C became flooded. By this time, D knew that the pipe has burst because their land was drained.
        
        Held: HoL held that occupier who knows of the danger but failed to do stop it continues to be liable even though they did not create the danger in the first place.
    - - When land is occupied by someone other than the owner, generally the occupier is liable. But there's 3 situations where owners are held liable:
        
        Where the land is let out, but the lease provides that the landlord has an obligation to repair the premise/the right to enter and do repairs
        
        Wringe v Cohen (1940):
        
        Facts: D is responsible for keeping the premises repaired but failed to do so. As a result a wall collapsed and damaged the neighboring shops belonging to C.
        
        Held: D is liable
        
        Where the landlord can be said to have authorised the nuisance
        
        Tetley v Chitty (1986):
        
        Facts: Local council allowed go-kart club to se their land where the noise from the go-karts disturbed the local residences. Council claimed they were not liable because they did not create the nuisance
        
        Held: Court held that as noise was an inevitable result of a go-kart club, allowing the club the use the land amounted to permitting the nuisance, = council liable.
        
        Tunku Norella Suriani bt Tunku Yusoff & Anor v Kumpulan:
        
        Facts: C successfully sued her neighbor for regularly carrying out open burning of prayer offerings which gave out unpleasant smoke smells. It also caused smoke and ashes to be blown to her house.
        
        Held: Amounted to nuisance, not only did it interfere with the lady's enjoyment of her house but also reduced value of her property.
        
        Nuisance already existed when the land was let, the owners knew/ought to have known about it
        
        Lippiat v South Clouchestershire Council (1999):
        
        Facts: Council allowed a group of travellers to set up illegal encampment on their land. C were farmers on the neighboring land. C claimed that the travellers used the land for illegal activity where they caused damage and behaved aggressively towards C. They sued the council on the basis that they allowed the nuisance.
        
        Held: CA dismissed the claim as it was arguable that the council actually authorised the nuisance. (how could they have known the travellers would do the deed)
  - - - Malone v Laskey (1907):
        
        Facts: C lived in hose belonging to her husband's employer. C's husband was a tenant, and she had license to live at the property. The neighbors were using an electricity generator that caused vibrations in the house, dislodged the cistern that fell on her and caused her injuries. She sued for nuisance.
        
        Held per Lord Goff: "... action in private nuisance will only happen at the suit of a person who has a right to the land affected. Ordinarily a person can only sue if he has right to possession..." Thus claim failed.
        
        Khorasandjian v Bush (1993):
        
        Facts: C became friends with D where after their relationship fell out, he became violent and threatening towards her, making creepy phone calls when C lived her parents. He was jailed and received fines under criminal law for the phone calls. Despite the punishments D still continued his acts and C brought an action against D under this tort.
        
        Held per Lord Dillon: "It is ridiculous that deliberate and pestering phone calls can only be actionable in civil courts if the calls happen to have freehold/proprietary interest in the premise which he/he received the calls
        
        Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd & London Docklands Development Corporation (1997):
        
        Facts: C alleged that the large metallic structure interrupted their television reception and claimed under private nuisance (loss of enjoyment, remuneration for wasted license fee and time their signal had been impaired). Those who sued were either owners/tenants, but others did not have any property interests.
        
        Per Lord Goff on the CA's decision in Khorasandjian v Bush (1993):
        "In truth, all CA did was exploit law of private nuisance to create a route for tort of harassment that was only mildly effective and also artificially limit the harassment that took place in her home. Which is not the right way to develop the law". (you can sue as long as you have rightful possession of the property)
        
        Current position:
        
        HoL affirmed Malone v Laskey:
        
        Person must show that he has interest in land affected by the nuisance to sue in private nuisance.
        
        An action in private nuisance usually is brought by a person in actual possession of the land affected either as a freeholder/tenant of the land or even a leasee in exclusive possession.
- - - - There is no liability for nuisance
    - - Did the interference cause damage to C?
        
        NO
        
        No liability in for nuisance
        
        YES
        
        Is D covered by a defence?
        
        NO
        
        There is liability for nuisance
        
        YES
        
        No liability for nuisance