Nuisance

• Definition of nuisance


  • Parties to action
  • Interference
  • unreasonable:

  1. locality
  2. duration
  3. sensitivity
  4. malice
  5. social benefit
• Parties to action 


  • both parties must have an interest in the property
  • Generally meant that they have control over the property as the owner or tenant
  • it is possible for the defendant to be liable, even if they did not cause the nuisance
• PTA - Sedleigh Denfield v O’ Callaghan:


  • F: local council put pipe and drain in ditch on land owned by monks without their knowledge, drain blocked and monks aware + neighbours field flooded
  • LP: the monsters owners did not act when aware and therefore adopted the nuisance - (were liable)
• Interference 


  • balance of interests
  • what does it mean?:
  • Smells, noises, vibrations, heat, fumes, fire - all intangible
  • Historically emotional distress is also been allowed in laws v Florinplace Ltd the opening of adult entertainment shop was considered interference
• Reasonableness 


  3 main factors:

  • locality - reasonable , Sturges v Bridgman
  • Duration- length of time and when you choose to do it
  • Sensitivity
• Sturges v Bridgman 


  • F: Doctor complained that his new consulting rooms were affected by vibrations from nearby factory and d argued that he had prescriptive right to continue
  • LP: The defence of prescription failed as a nuisance began when the consulting room was built
• PTA - Leakey v National Trust


  • F: was a large natural mound on a hillside on D’s land and D was aware that it could slip and it did, damaging c’s cottage
  • LP: a landowner could be liable nuisance if she knew a slippage might happen and he or she failed to prevent it
• Interference - Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd


  • F: residents in Docklands complained of interference with television reception when Canary Wharf was being built
  • LP: the loss of a recreational facility is not sufficient interference to give rise to an action in nuisance
• Duration: 


  • not fixed and related to what is reasonable
  • Factors related - length of interference, timing and frequency
• Duration - crown River cruises v Kimbolton


  • F: a river barge was set alight by flammable debris, from 20 min firework display
  • LP: Even a short term activity can amount to nuisance
• Duration - De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros 


  • F: building work was carried out at night and interfered with c’s sleep
  • LP: Even temporary building work can amount to a nuisance
• Sensitivity 


  • If the nuisance is a result of an unforeseeable or unreasonable sensitivity, it may not be liability
• Sensitivity - Robinson v Kilvert 


  • F: paper boxes were stored in hot and dry conditions which caused paper stored above them to dry out
  • LP: if the claimant is unduly sensitive, a nuisance will not be found
• sensitivity- Network Rail v Morris


  • F: D’s installed new track circuits which interfered with electrical equipment of nearby music studio
  • LP: not deemed interference as it was unforeseeable the equipment would have this affect
• Malice - Christie v Davey 


  • F: D annoyed by neighbours music and deliberately banged on the walls, banging trays, blew whistles and shouted to disturb the neighbours
  • LP: the defendants deliberate malicious behaviour amounted to a nuisance
• Social benefit - Miller v Jackson


  • F: the c’s use of the garden Worcester disrupted by cricket balls being hit into it from the adjoining recreation ground
  • LP: the use of a sport ground and its benefit to the community outweigh the private use of the claimants garden