private nuisance

• Volenti non fit injuria: Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre: Pipes in sprinkler system burst, but C consented no liability where C consents
• Parties> Hunter V Canary Wharf: office tower interrupted TV reception, children and spouses couldn't bring claim as they did not have legal interest in property only owners and tenants could
• Tetley V Chitty> D allowed go-kart racing on his land, was therefore liable for the noise and disturbance caused by the go-kart
• Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan> D knew a 3rd party had laid a pipe on his land and it was prone to risk of flooding, D had not consented to pipe being laid on his land but he was still liable when C's land was flooded because *he had allowed the danger to continue*
• Leakey v National trust> were aware of the natural mound that could slip it did and damaged a cottage, D's were liable as they knew a slippage might happen and failed to prevent it
• Anthony v coal authority> coal authority were liable because they were aware of the problem but failed to prevent it
• unlawful interference> Halsey v Esso Petroleum: physical damage will generally be regarded as unlawful interference
• unlawful interference> St Helen's smelting co v tipping: material psychical damage will generally be regarded as unlawful interference
• d's use of land unreasonable in the way that it affects C> Locality *>. Sturges v Bridgman: unlawful interference given the residential character of the locality (doctors surgery in quiet area vs industrial sweet stuff)
• Locality> Laws v FLlorinplace: sex shop offended local residents, valid as it affected ordinary comfort of human existence
• duration> De Keyser's Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros> the interference was unreasonable since it interfered with C's sleep
• Duration> Barr v Biffa Waste: was a nuisance due to length and degree of the interference (strong garbage smells over 5 years)
• Duration> Crown river cruises v Kimbolton fireworks: D was liable despite the nuisance only lasting 20 mins* because there was physical damage*
• Sensitivity> Robinson V Kilvert: D was not liable as damage was due to the special sensitivity of the paper
• Sensitivity> Network rail v morris: C could not claim for damage to his business because interference with the guitars was unforseeable*
• Malice- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)- motivated by malice, intention to scare foxes when firing gun
• Malice- Christie v Davey- D's actions motivated by malice, D banging on walls/ trays and shouting
• Social utility- Miller v Jackson- court refused injunction awarded damages instead as there was public benefit to playing cricket
• Defences- Statutory authority- Allen v Gulf oil- oil refinery was built under act of parliament so couldnt sue in nuisance
• Defences- Statutory authority- Gillingham BC v Medway- planning permision
• Defences- Statutory authority- watson v croft promo-sport- C's claim in nuisance succeeded as the planning permission had not changed the character of the area which remained rural an injunction was granted
• defences- prescription- sturges v bridgman- c doctor who treated patients in house, noise from confectionary factory, despite factory being there for 20 years without complaint c won and defence of prescription failed because nuisance only began when the consulting room was built
• remedies- injunction- kennaway v thompson- partial injunction granted limiting number of boat races
• remedies- injunction- conventry v lawrence- resedential property near stadium, damages rather than injunction as there was a social benefit to the motor cross activities
• damages- D may argue that damages are more appropriate remedy (especially if planning permission was granted for the activity)
• abatement- right of c to take reasonable steps to deal with any nuisance themselves e.g. chopping off overhanging tree or unblocking drain
• fearn v tate gallery been updated- fearn won went to supreme court 'judged by standards of ordinary person' been added to definition
• 1. parties right to bring action (must have legal interest in the land and D must be creator of the nuisance)
  2. interference (loss of amenity/ physical damage)
  3. unlawful interference
  4. defences (prescription/ statutory authority
  5. remedies (injunction/ damages, abatement(reduction/removal of nuisance))
• Basic definition

  An unlawful interference with the ordinary use and enjoyment of neighbouring land
• 1. Parties

  ● Claimant must have a legal interest in land affected by nuisance

  ○ Hunter v Canary Wharf (owners and tenants could claim, but not children or guests)

  ● Defendant may be the creator of the nuisance or person who has allowed it to continue

  ○ Tetley v Chitty (landlords liable for actions of tenants, go-karting)

  ○ Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan (adopting a nuisance); Leakey v National Trust (D

  can be liable for naturally occurring nuisance)
• 2. Interference

  Interference usually needs to be continuous, rather than a one-off occurrence

  Claims in private nuisance cover 2 types of interference:

  ● Physical damage to the land, which is usually regarded as unlawful

  ○ Halsey v Esso (acid smuts)

  ○ St Helens Smelting v Tipping (damage to trees and shrubs)
• interference

  Loss of amenity (use or enjoyment of the land), will depend on circumstances of case, e.g.

  ○ Sturges v Bridgman (noise and vibrations)

  ○ Bone v Seal (smells from pig farm)

  ○ Williams v Network Rail (Japanese knotweed posed risk of future damage to

  property and affects owner’s ability to develop the property)

  ○ Fearn v Tate Gallery (visual intrusion)

  ○ Hunter v Canary Wharf (loss of TV reception was only a loss of recreational facility)
• Unlawful interference

  ● There will be no action in nuisance if:

  (i) D is making no more than a common and ordinary use of land, and

  (ii) if the activity was conveniently done, with proper consideration for the interests

  of neighbours.
• unlawful interference

  What amounts to an ordinary use of land depends on the character of the locality, e.g.

  Sturges v Bridgman; Laws v Florinplace

  ● In deciding whether the activity was conveniently done, it may be relevant to consider the

  duration/extent and whether D has acted with malice

  ○ De Keyer’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros (temporary building work at night was a

  nuisance)
• unlawful interference

  what amounts to ordinary use of land depends on the character of the locality e.g.

  ○ Barr v Biffa Waste (strong garbage smells over period of 5 years)

  ○ Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks (single act of physical damage)

  ○ Christie v Davey (actions motivated by malice are more likely to be unreasonable)
• unlawful interference

  What amounts to an ordinary use of land depends on the character of the locality, e.g.

  Special sensitivity of C is not relevant, e.g. Network Rail v Morris (damage to sensitive

  equipment in a recording studio was not foreseeable); Robinson v Kilvert

  ● Social utility is not a relevant factor for determining whether there is a nuisance but it may

  affect the remedy granted, e.g. Miller v Jackson (court refused to grant injunction against

  cricket club but instead awarded damages); Fearn v Tate Gallery
• Defences to private nuisance

  Statutory authority

  ● Allen v Gulf Oil (nuisance had been authorised by an Act of Parliament)

  ● Local authority planning permission not a defence unless it has changed the character of

  the neighbourhood

  ○ Gillingham BC v Medway (disused dockyard now commercial port)

  ○ Watson v Croft Promo-Sport (still rural area despite permission for motor-cross)
• defences to private nuisance

  Prescription

  ● D’s activity must have been causing a nuisance for 20 years or more without complaint

  ○ Coventry v Lawrence (20 years runs from date an actionable nuisance arises)

  ● No defence of “coming to the nuisance”

  ○ Sturges v Bridgman (D’s activities didn’t cause a nuisance until C moved consulting

  rooms to end of garden)

  ○ Miller v Jackson (Cs had built house next to cricket pitch)
• defences to private nuisance

  Injunction, damages, abatement

  ● Injunction may prohibit an activity or control it to defined limits

  ○ Kennaway v Thompson (partial injunction restricting number of powerboat races)

  ● Where planning permission is in place or there is a public benefit to the activity, damages

  may be more appropriate than an injunction

  ○ Coventry v Lawrence; Fearn v Tate Gallery

  ● Damages may be awarded for physical damage to the land and loss of amenity,

  occasionally punitive damages if D has acted with malice