Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

PRIVATE NUISANCE - Coggle Diagram

- - - - legal interest
      - easement
    - - to use and enjoy
        
        as with exclusive possession of land
  - - - buildings
      - other things physically attached to it/its rights
        
        easements
    - - tort of private nuisance used increasingly for privacy protection - successfully
        
        [2023] decision overturning [2020]
- - - - knowledge or acquiescence by C
      - 20 years
      - an actionable nuisance for that period
        
        Chalmers v Diageo Scotland Ltd
  - - - Peires v Bickerton’s Aerodromes Ltd
  - - - Coventry v Lawrence
    - - Fearn v Tate Gallery
- - - - and not personal
        discomfort to the persons who are occupying it
    - - but it cannot justify denying the
        victim any remedy at all
- - - - direct physical injury to neighbour C's land
        
        Netowork Rail v Williams
      - nuisance that produces material injury to the property
    - - (amenity nuisances)
        
        interference with C's quiet enjoyment of their land
  - - - Fearn v Tate Gallery
    - - to determine reasonable user, the court must balance the right of D to use and enjoy his land as he wishes, against the interference to C’s enjoyment of his land
        
        Bamford v Turnley
        
        relevant factors:
        
        character of the neighborhood
        
        depends on whether area was already smelly/noisy etc. before the interference
        
        but does not mean that richer neighbourhoods are entitled to greater protection of land than poorer ones
        
        Fearn v Tate Gallery
        
        St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping
        
        duration, intensity, frequency
        
        both one off and continuing interferences actionable
        
        British Celanese Ltd v Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd [1969]
        
        public interest/utility of D's interference
        
        not an absolute defence
        
        Miller v Jackson
        
        Dennis v MOD
        
        effect of malice
        
        Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett
        
        effect of planning permission
        
        not a complete defence, but relevant
        
        Coventry v Lawrence
        
        failing to comply with planning permissions can hurt D though
        
        Hunter v Canary Wharf
        
        Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd
        
        1 more item...
        
        so called 'Gillingham principle'
        
        2 more items...
        
        also considers the economic/social/political utility when granting planning permissions which is irrelevant to private nuisance
        
        'freedom to build'
        
        fundamental principle of nuisance/'unreasonable user'
        
        Fearn v Tate Gallery
        
        anyone can build whatever they like provided it is properly and 'conveniently done'
        
        (not all have to be made out)
        
        'coming to the nuisnace'
        
        not an outright defence
        
        if C ‘comes to the nuisance’, and D was ‘first in time’
        
        Fearn v Tate Gallery
        
        Hunter v Canary
        Wharf
        
        Sturges v Bridgman
        
        Miller v Jackson
        
        caveat:
        
        1 more item...
  - - - ‘highly elastic’ concept in private nuisance
        
        but in physical encroachment cases:
        
        the ‘better view’ is probably that damage is ‘formally required but damage is always presumed’
        
        Network Rail v Williams
        
        will be no physical damage to C’s land in the case of amenity nuisances
      - must be the right kind of damage
        
        damage to land/interest in land
        
        extent to which the land’s utility has been diminished by D’s
        nuisance-making activity is compensable (amenity)
        
        physical damage to land
        
        St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping
        
        consequential chattel damage
        
        Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
        
        consequential economic damage
        
        Hunter v Canary Wharf
        
        special damages
        
        Dobson v Thames Water Utilities
        
        LA damages
        
        but NOT:
        
        personal injuries
        
        Hirose Electrical UK Ltd v Peak Ingredients Ltd
        
        psychiatric injuries
        
        note difference
        
        between encroachments on C’s land that have not caused physical damage, but which mean a
        reduction in the value of C’s property
    - - Ellison v MOD
      - Hirose Electrical v Peak Ingredients
  - - - interference with C’s enjoyment must have been reasonably foreseeable
        
        Cambridge Water Co v Easter Counties Leather plc
        
        Network Rail Infrastructures Ltd v Morris
        
        and the damage must also be reasonably forseeable
      - meaning of 'strict liability'
    - - rule about abnormally sensitive claimants
        
        Robinson v Kilvert
        
        reasons:
        
        modern treatment vacillated
        
        Network Rail v Morris
        
        Fouladi v Darout Ltd
        
        but
        
        Fearn v Tate Galleries
        
        emphatically re-established the ratio of Robinson v Kilvert
        
        what if an ordinary C's property would have been damaged
        
        McKinnon Industries Ltd v Walker
- - - - Hunter v Canary Wharf
        
        endorsed in
        
        Fearn v Tate Gallery
        
        C must have either a proprietary or a possessory interest (amounting to a right to exclusive possession) in the land
        
        a 'substantial link' between C and the land is not enough
      - old view
        
        Malone v Laskey
        
        change of view
        
        contrast previous wider view of CA
        
        Khorasandjian v Bush
        
        HL majority favoured restrictive view
        
        anomalies in law as a result
        
        McKenna v British Aluminium Ltd
        
        Pemberton v Southwark London BC [
        
        Willis v Derwentside DC
    - - who cannot:
  - - - (landlords excluded from module)
      - creator of nuisance
        
        owner/occupier who caused nuisance
        
        creation of nuisance
        
        LE Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth CC
        
        contrasting older view
        
        Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
        
        Hussain v Lancaster CC
        
        modern view
        
        1 more item...
      - person who adopts the nuisance
        
        owner/occupier did not create it
        
        but makes use for their own benefit, of a building/bank/structure put in place by another which has created it
        
        adoption and/or continuance
        
        Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan
        
        Page Motors Ltd v Epsom and Ewell BC
        
        Lippiatt v South Gloucestshire CC
      - person who continues the nuisance
        
        owner/occupier did not create it
        
        but knows or is presumed to know of its existence
        
        and fails to take any reasonable means to stop it
  - - - Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd