nuisance

• Rylands v Fletcher (1868) rule


  one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.
• Private nuisance definition:


  Unlawful interference with a person's use and enjoyment of land
• Does private nuisance cover for personal injury?

  No
• Kennaway v Thompson 


  -all of us have to put up with a certain amount of annoyance from our neighbours -> must be a reassure of give and take

  -neighbour must be using his property reasonably
• How is unlawful interference determined?


  By balancing the defendant's activity against the claimant's enjoyment of the land

  -Coventry v Lawrence [2014]
• When does the 'nature of the locality' factor not apply?

  where there is a 'nuisance by direct physical damage to the claimant's property'

  -St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping [1865]
• Who can sue in private nuisance?

  -only those with a proprietary interest in the land (e.g owners or leaseholders)

  -Malone v Laskey [1907]
• St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping

  • coming to the nuisance is not a defence
• Hunter v Canary Wharf

  • both material physical damage and loss of amenity amounted to interference with property interests
• Malone v Laskey

  • in order to sue, c must have a proprietary interest in the land
  • although this was challenged in Khorasandijian v Bush, Hunter v Canary Wharf reaffirmed it was necessary
• Hunter v Canary Wharf

  • interference with TV signal does not amount to nuisance
  • reaffirmed that only those with interest in the land can sue
  • BUT in McKenna v British Aluminium Ltd, the judge refused to strike out the claims under the Hunter rule and implied that those who have lives in a property for some time should be allowed to sue
• Sturges v Bridgman

  • implied that the character of the neighbourhood must be considered when determining a nuisance
• Gillingham BC v Medway Dock Co Ltd

  • locality can change over time
  • but does not mean that every time planning permission is granted, the nature of a locality will change
  • displayed in Wheeler v JJ Saunders where it was held that planning permission is not the same as statutory authority and not a defence to nuisance
• Heath v Mayor of Brighton

  • sensitivity of c is irrelevant
  • in this case only c was disturbed, thus injunction refused
  • affirmed in Robinson v Kilvert
• Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Morris

  • sensitivity of the claimant must now be considered alongside foreseeability
• Coventry v Lawrence

  • noise from the racetrack, regardless of planning permission, amounted to nuisance
• Christie v Davey

  • d acted 'only for the purpose of annoyance' thus an injunction was granted due to the bad intention of d
• Southwark LBC v Mills

  • everyone must put up with some interference from neighbours but these interferences become unreasonable when they are intense
  • affirmed in Kennaway v Thompson
• Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery

  • common and ordinary use of the land, rather than 'unreasonable user' needs to be found
• 20 year prescription

  • if d has used land in the way complained about for more than 20 years that c has been aware, they can use this defence
  • Sturges v Bridgman held that this time only starts from the moment it becomes a nuisance
• Statutory authority

  • Manchester Corporation v Farnworth, d's actions were authorised by statute
• No remedies for personal injury under private nuisance

  • affirmed in Rylands v Fletcher
  • BUT personal discomfort, as demonstrated in Bone v Seale, is recoverable
• abatement

  • self-help remedy, typically used in encroachment cases, allowed to enter property to 'deal with' the nuisance
  • e.g cutting tree roots
• Injunctions should be granted unless d can convince the court otherwise (Coventry v Lawrence)

  • e.g public interest (Miller v Jackson) but not always successful (Kennaway v Thompson)
• Shelter v City of London Electric Lighting Co

  • implied that damages should be a rare outcome for private nuisance
• Andreae v Selfridge & Co Ltd

  • economic loss consequential upon damage to proprietary interest is recoverable
• objective of public nuisance is the recognition and protection of publicly held rights and not the protection of private property interests
• Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd

  • a claim in public nuisance can only be made where c has suffered particular harm arising from activity that has materially affected the reasonable comfort of a large number of citizens
• particular harm in public nuisance means that c must have a higher degree of harm than that suffered by the public at large

  • e.g personal injury and property damage
  • Castle v St Augustine's Links
• Sanderson v Berwick-upon-Tweed Corporation

  • any act or omission which amounts to a substantial interference with the quiet enjoyment of the leasehold premises, amounts to a breach of covenant
• Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

  • d was liable despite the abnormal sensitivity of c's use of land as he was motivated by malice