Unlawful interference

• An unlawful interference is an unreasonable intereference. Private nuisance will only protect the claimant against an unreasonable use of land.
• Whether an indirect intereference is unlawful is a matter of fact and degree.
• žThe time at which D’s activity takes place is a factor that will be considered by the Court.  An activity which does not normally constitute a nuisance may do so if it takes place during antisocial hours. This was shown in the case of Leeman v Montague
• • žLocality is a relevant factor.  What constitutes nuisance because it is unreasonable in a residential area may not be a nuisance in an industrial area.  The courts will also take into account whether D had any choice in where on D’s land the activity took place
  • Lord Justice Thesiger stated in žSturges v Bridgman “what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondesy”
• žThe Courts will assess the extent to which D is motivated by malice.  Where D is motivated by malice the Courts are more likely to find that the interference is unreasonable. As shown in the cases of Christie v Davey and Hollywood Silver Fox farm v Emmett
• Briefly, what are the facts in Christie v Davey?

  The plaintiff (claimant) and defendant lived in adjoining houses. žP was a music teacher who gave lessons at home and sometimes held musical parties. D objected to this, and retaliated by blowing whistles, banging on metal trays, shouting, and generally making a noise to disturb the music. P sought and was granted an injunction; D's conduct was purely malicious and was therefore unreasonable.
• Briefly explain the facts in hollywood silver fox farm v emmett?

  The plaintiff (Claimant) and the defendant owned adjoining farms. Following a dispute between them, D on his own land (but as near as possible to P's breeding pens) fired guns during the breeding season with the intention of disturbing the breeding season) The judge awarded damages and an injunction restraining D from firing guns or making other noises near the fox farm during the breeding season
• žThe Courts must balance conflicting interests.  If there is a public benefit to be derived from D’s activity, the courts are unlikely to grant an injunction prohibiting the activity altogether.  Damages is more likely to be considered an appropriate remedy- As shown in the cases of Kennaway v Thompson, and Miller v Jackson
• briefly explain the facts of Kennaway v Thompson?

  The owners of a number of lakeside homes complained of the noise caused by power-boat racing on the lake; some of the homes had been recently built, but the amount of racing had increased. Lord Justice Lawton žgranted an injunction against the organisers of the racing, limiting both the number of days on which racing could take place and the number and power of boats allowed to take part.
• The more often the unreaosnable activity occurs, and the longer that it goes on, the more likely the Courts are to find it unreasonable.  Isolated incidents are not normally actionable, but they can be if they are sufficiently serious- this was shown in the case of British celanese LTD v Hunt
• the facts in British Celanese v Hunt are:

  • žThe defendants owned a factory on an industrial estate in which they manufactured electrical components.  Strips of their metal foil escaped from the factory and blew on to an overhead cable, causing a power failure which stopped production at the claimant’s factory.
  • žAn isolated incident may be a nuisance.  There is no rule that the first escape can’t be claimed for.
• žA particular sensitivity of C will not make an activity unreasonable, which would otherwise be reasonable- as shown in the case of Robinson v Kilvert
• what are the facts of Robinson v Kilvert?

  The plaintiff (Claimant) used one floor of a building for the storage of heat-sensitive paper, and sought without success to enjoin D from carrying on immediately below a process which involved the use of hot air. The courts said a man who carries on an exceptionally delicate trade cannot complain because it is injured by his neighbour doing something lawful on his property, if it is something which would not injure anything but an exceptionally delicate trade
• If the nuisance existed before the claimant moved to the vicinity, it doesn't matter because it is irrelevant. If the claimant is suffering from a nuisance of some kind, it does not matter if the defendant was there first
• People who have an interest in the land may sue for private nuisance, this includes:

  • The owner of the property
  • someone who is leasing or renting the property
  • NOT family members or lodgers.
• People who can be liable for private nuisance include:

  • The creator of the nuisance, regardless of whether they own the land from which the nuisance originated from
  • the occupier of the land
  • the owner of the land if they authorised the nuisance