Private nuisance

• The claimant


  The claimant must have a legal interst in the affected land (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
• The defendant 


  Must be the creator of the nuisance or have control over the land and gives permission for the nuisance (Tetley v Chitty)(cicking v Eacott)
• The interference

  It can be phyiscal damage (St Helens v Tipping) or loss of amenity
• Unlawfullness: locality


  A larger range of activities are acceptable in industrial areas (St Helens v Tipping)
• Unlawfullness: Duration


  The more often the interference occurs, the more likely it is to be unlawful. But a single significant event can amount (Crown River Cruises v Kikbolton)
• Unlawfullness: degree of interference

  The more serious it is, the more likely ut is to be unlawful (Murdock v Glacier metal)
• Unlawfullness: sensitivity 


  If C is using his land for an extra sensitive purpose, it I'd less likely to be unlawful (Network rail Ltd v Morris)
• Unlawfullness: social utility


  The more useful to society, the less likely to be unlawful (Dennis v Ministry of Defence)
• Unlawfullness: motive


  If D deliberately causes the interference to annoy C, it's more likely to be unlawful (Christie v Davey)
• Defences: statutory authority


  If D cab show the nuisance was created by a public body acting under legislative power, C cannot sue parliament. (Allen v Gulf oil)
• Defences: prescription


  If D's activity has been carried out for the last 20yrs without objection, the activity wikk be deemed lawful
• Remedies: injunction


  Prohibits or controls Ds activity (tate v Fearn)
• Remedies: abatement


  C has the right to deal with the nuisance himself
• Remedies: damages 


  Can be awarded for consequential damage, and loss of amenityequal to the value of the land (hunter v canary wharf)(Dennis v MoD)