Term
| What do 'torts relating to land' do? |
|
Definition
| Protect your interest in the use and enjoyment of land. |
|
|
Term
| What are the three types of torts relating to land? |
|
Definition
1) Private Nuisance
2) Public nuisance
3) Rylands |
|
|
Term
| Which of the three types of torts relating to land is the most important? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What types of things can = a nuisance? |
|
Definition
| Noise, smell, pollution, sound, roots, flying objects, water etc... |
|
|
Term
| What is the definition of a nuisance? |
|
Definition
| 'Nuisance is an unlawful activity that is harmful or noxious and which interferes with another person's rights, use or enjoyment of their land' |
|
|
Term
| Which case provides us with the definition of a nuisance? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF NUISANCE
'Nuisance is an unlawful activity that is harmful or noxious and which interferes with another person's rights, use or enjoyment of their land' |
|
|
Term
| Which case provides us with a definition of private nuisance? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF PRIVATE NUISANCE
'any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a plaintiff's land or his enjoyment of that land' |
|
|
Term
| What is the definition of private nuisance? |
|
Definition
| 'any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a plaintiff's land or his enjoyment of that land' |
|
|
Term
| What are the three recognised varieties of damage that can be actioned under private nuisance? |
|
Definition
i) Actual damage to property
ii)(SPD)Interference with a person's health, comfort, or convenience
iii) Interference with a person's servitudes (e.g. rights of way or support)
iii) Servitudes e.g. easements, covenants, rights of way, physical support etc... |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| ROOT DAMAGE = ACTUAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY = ACTIONABLE PRIVATE NUISANCE |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to show that root damage is an actionable private nuisance? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Which case distinguished SPD as a type of damage which you can claim for under 'torts relating to land' |
|
Definition
| St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping [1865] |
|
|
Term
| St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping [1865] |
|
Definition
DISTINGUISHED SPD AS A TYPE OF DAMAGE WHICH YOU CAN CLAIM FOR UNDER 'TORTS RELATING TO LAND'
C sued D because of fumes, smoke etc. coming from the D's copper smelting plant
HELD - D's caused actual damage to the C's property, and SPD to the C |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Sensible Personal Discomfort - where the senses of the C are affected in such a way that the C is unable to enjoy the use of his land. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| COCKRELS CROWING ALL THE TIME HELD TO = SPD = PRIVATE NUISANCE |
|
|
Term
| Can human beings be a nuisance? |
|
Definition
YES
Customers - Laws v Florinplace [1981]
Gypsies - Page Motors Ltd v Epsom & Ewell Borough Council [1982]
Travellers - Lippiatt v South Gloucestershir City Council [1999] |
|
|
Term
| Laws v Florinplace [1981] |
|
Definition
CUSTOMERS TO A SHOP CAN BE A PRIVATE NUISANCE
C and his family lived in a house in suburban Pimlico
D moved in to local area and set up a sex shop
C brought a claim - stating that the customers were a nuisance
HELD - a group of people can be a nuisance. Customers = nuisance.
Big factor = locality, the type of area = a residential family area |
|
|
Term
| Page Motors Ltd v Epsom & Ewell Borough Council [1982] |
|
Definition
YOU CAN BE SUED FOR NOT STOPPING TRESPASSERS ON YOUR LAND FROM CREATING A NUISANCE
GYPSIES HELD TO = NUISANCE
C owned a prestigeous car dealership in Epsom
on land next to C's dealership, some gypsies set up camp (illegally) on some council proprty
C argued that the gypsies were a nuisance & it was Ds (the council) responsibility to get rid of them
HELD - Gypsies were a nuisance & the council were liable because they did not abate the nuisance |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to show that the owner of the land can be sued for not preventing a trespasser to the land from creating a nuisance on their land? |
|
Definition
Page Motors Ltd v Epsom & Ewell Borough Council [1982]
Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to show that travellers can = a private nuisance? |
|
Definition
| Lippiatt v South Gloucestershir City Council [1999] |
|
|
Term
| Lippiatt v South Gloucestershir City Council [1999] |
|
Definition
| TRAVELLERS CAN = A PRIVATE NUISANCE |
|
|
Term
| If someone does something on their land which intereferes with your TV & Radio etc. reception, can you sue under private nuisance? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board [1965] |
|
Definition
A NEIGHBOUR'S INTERFERENCE WITH YOU TV & RADIO SIGNALLING IS NOT AN ACTIONABLE NUISANCE. PARTLY BECAUSE BLOCKIGN SOMETHING IS NOT SUFFICIENT, SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAS TO BE EMITTED FROMT HE D'S LAND.
C sued D for interfering with his TV signal
HELD - not an actionable nuisance. Court held that this situation was analogous to Bland v Mosely [1587].
Furthermore, because it was a case of 'blocking' something, rather than 'making the nuisance happen' = not an actionable nuisance |
|
|
Term
| Why can you not sue under private nuisance where someone does something on their land which interferes with your ability to get TV & Radio signalling? |
|
Definition
| Because of a principle which was developed in the case of Bland v Mosely [1587], and has been resurrected in TV & Radio cases to mean that interference with reception is NOT actionable. |
|
|
Term
| What was the principle developed in Bland v Mosely [1587] |
|
Definition
| INTERFERENCE WITH A VIEW IS NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER PRIVATE NUISANCE. PARTLY BECAUSE 'BLOCKING' SOMETHING IS NOT A NUISANCE, THE D ACTUALLY HAS TO 'MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN' FOR IT TO BE A NUISANCE |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
BLOCKING SOMEONE'S VIEW DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE. PARTLY BECAUSE 'BLOCKING' SOMETHING IS NOT SUIFFICIENT, THE D ACTUALLY HAS TO 'CREATE' THE NUISANCE E.G. 'MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN'
IF SOMEONE HAS SOMETHING ON THEIR LAND THAT BLOCKS THE VIEW OF A NEIGHBOUR, THE NEIGHBOUR CANNOT SUE UNDER NUISANCE FOR THE BLOCKING OF THE VIEW |
|
|
Term
| Can the tort of private nuisance be used to protect recreational facilities (e.g. TV, radio) |
|
Definition
| NO - because of the principle in Bland v Mosely. |
|
|
Term
| Nor-Video Services Ltd v Ontario Hydro |
|
Definition
| IN CANADA, INTERFERING WITH TV & RADIO SIGNALLING = AN ACTIONABLE NUISANCE |
|
|
Term
| Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] |
|
Definition
CONFIRMED THAT WHERE A NEIGHBOUR INTERFERES WITH TV & RADIO SIGNALLING = NOT AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM
PARTLY BECAUSE BLOCKING SOMETHING IS NOT A NUISANCE, D ACTUALLY HAS TO CREATE THE NUISANCE - SOMETHING HAS TO 'COME FROM' D'S PROPERTY
ALSO, A DIFFERENT AREA OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED TO PREVENT THE BUILDING OF CANARY WHARF
Cs = a group of people who argued that their TV & radio reception was being interfered with by the Ds building
Cs argued that it was because of the height and materials from which the building was built = interference
HoL decision - HELD - INTERFERENCE WITH TV & RADIO SIGNALS IS NOT AN ACTIONABLE NUISANCE BECAUSE THE D HAS TO ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING, NOT JUST BLOCK SOMETHING |
|
|
Term
| Which cases show that in order for something to be a nuisance, 'something (the nuisance)' actually has to come from the D's land. Something on the D's land which 'blocks' something on the C's land DOES NOT constitute a nuisance |
|
Definition
Bland v Mosely [1587]
Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board [1965]
Hunter and others v Canary Wharf [1997] |
|
|
Term
| Can you claim under private nuisance for personal injury? |
|
Definition
NO
In some earlier cases, it was held that you could. However, later cases have made it very clear that you can not. |
|
|
Term
| Which case can you use in an exam to confirm that personal injury is not actionable under private nuisance? |
|
Definition
Lord Hoffman Obiter in Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]
(I know this case is to do with Tvs etc, but the obiter remark can be used to back up this point) |
|
|
Term
| Why does private nuisance not cover personal injury? |
|
Definition
| Because negligence would cover these cases. |
|
|
Term
| Who can sue under private nuisance? |
|
Definition
| Any one can sue as a claimant, provided that they have a legal interest in the land (proprietary or possesionary) that is experiencing the nuisance |
|
|
Term
| Can licensees sue under private nuisance? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to show that the C MUST have a legal interest in the land? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
YOU NEED TO HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST IN THE LAND IN ORDER TO CLAIM UNDER PRIVATE NUISANCE
C was sitting on the toilet
The sistern above the lady's head fell on her, because the bolts had become loose because of the D's industrial activities on his land.
HELD - you need to have a legal interest in the land, C didn't have a legal interest, therefore, the claim failed
NOTE - this case = personal injury, in the olden days, PI used to be actionable under private nuisance, but it isn't any more. |
|
|
Term
| W.r.t the issue of the C needing to have a legal interest in the land, what must you be cautious of?? |
|
Definition
| In the past, there was a 'blip' in the law, where C's who didn't have a legal interest were allowed to claim. However, current position = you MUST have a legal interest in the land. |
|
|
Term
| Who can be sued under private nuisance? |
|
Definition
i) Creater of the nuisance
ii) Occupier of the land
iii) Landlords (generally no, but some exceptions)
iv) Party in control of the land |
|
|
Term
| What is the controversy concerning the issue that only those who have a legal interest in the land can sue under private nuisance? |
|
Definition
| Because it discriminates, and stops individuals protecting some of their fundamental human rights. e.g. a child under 18 could not sue for bnuisance, whilst their parents can. |
|
|
Term
| Dobson v Thameswater [2009] |
|
Definition
| GETS OVER THE PROBLEM OF NON-LEGAL INTEREST HOLDERS NOT BEING ABLE TO SUE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LEGAL ITNEREST IN THE LAND, USE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO SUE (Procedural barrier to a fair trial (Art 6), because common law wont let non-legal interest owner to sue)or.... Art 8, the public authorities aren't protecting the individual's Art 8 rights. |
|
|
Term
| Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1985] |
|
Definition
EXAMPLE OF A CASE IN WHICH THE CREATOR OF THE NUISANCE WAS SUED EVEN THOUGH THE CREATOR MIGHT NOT BE THE OCCUPIER OF THE LAND(public nuisance)
Ds encouraged their workers (miners) to picket the highway
C sued D |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to show that the creator of the nuisance can be sued? |
|
Definition
| Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1985] |
|
|
Term
| If a nuisance is caused by someone who is not the occupier of the land, can you sue them? |
|
Definition
| YES - Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1985] |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to show that in private nuisance, you can sue the occupier of the land (regardless of whether or not they created the nuisance)? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What are the exceptions to the rule that you can sue the occupier of the land under private nuisance? |
|
Definition
Where the occupier can prove that the nuisance was casued by:
i) An independent contractor
ii) A previous owner
iii) A trespasser (however, you can sue the owner if the occupier hasn't stopped the nuisance caused by a trespasser - Page Motors [1982])
iv) An act of nature (many ppl put this as a defence) |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to show that you cannot sue the occupier of the land if the nuisance was created by an independent contractor? |
|
Definition
| Matania v National Provincial Bank [1936] |
|
|
Term
| Matania v National Provincial Bank [1936] |
|
Definition
| YOU CANNOT SUE THE OCCUPIER OF THE LAND IF THE NUISANCE WAS CREATED BY AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR |
|
|
Term
| In order for an occupier to successfully argue that he should not be sued for nuisance, because the nuisance was created by an act of nature, what must the occupier show? |
|
Definition
| That it was not reasonably foreseeable. If it was reasonably foreseeable, the occupier should have taken steps to avoid it happening. |
|
|
Term
| Leakey v National Trust [1980] |
|
Definition
IN ORDER FOR A D TO SUCCESSFULLY CLAIM THAT THE NUISANCE WAS CREATED BY AN ACT OF GOD, THE D MUST SHOW THAT THE NUISANCE/DAMAGE WAS NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
D held liable where a mound of earth collapsed onto the C's land
Ds argued 'act of god'
HELD - it was reasonably foreseeable that the mound of earth would collapse - therefore, the D = liable, could not rely on 'act of nature' |
|
|
Term
| Goldman v Hargrave [1967] |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC [2000] |
|
Definition
ACT OF NATURE NUISANCE MUST NOT BE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE. IF IT IS, D MUST PREVENT IT. HOWEVER, IF THE COST OF PREVENTING IT = EXCESSIVE, THE COURT WILL NOT HOLD D LIABLE
Coastal erosion caused part of the Cs hotel to collapse. Cs sued the D (the council) because it was their responsibility to maintain the coast.
HELD - court took cost factor in to account, and held that there was no way that the D could have afforded to prevent all coastal erosion. |
|
|
Term
| In what circumstances can you sue a landlord for a nuisance which is created on the land which they have leased? |
|
Definition
| If the landlord leases the premises for the activity that creates the nuisance. By leasing it for that particular purpose, they are effectively allowing the activity. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
WHERE A LANDLOR LEASES THE PREMISES FOR THE ACTIVITY THAT CREATES THE NUISANCE, THE LANDLORD CAN BE SUED FOR NUISANCE
D leased premises to a go-kart club
C sued D
HELD - D had leased the land for the purpose of buildign a go-kart track. The landlord (D) could be held liable |
|
|
Term
| Southwark London Borough Council v Mills [1999] |
|
Definition
A LANDLORD CAN ONLY BE SUED WHERE THE LANDLORD HAS LEASED THE PREMISES FOR THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE/ACTIVITY THAT CREATES THE NUISANCE
D(local council) sued by C for noisy council tenants
HELD - D did not deliberately lease the premises to noisy tenants. The premises were leased out on standardly. Therefore, D had not in anyway created the nuisance. |
|
|
Term
| Hussain v Lancaster City Council [1999] |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Lippiat v South Gloucestershire Council [1999] - on whether you can sue landlords |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Jones Ltd Portsmouth City Council [2002] |
|
Definition
YOU CAN SUE THE PERSON IN CONTROL OF THE LAND IN NUISANCE - THE PERSON DOES NTO HAVE TO BE THE OWNER OF THE LAND
Ds did not own the land, but they were in control of the land
HELD - the person you sue does not have to be the owner. It can be the person in control of the land. |
|
|
Term
| What are the elements you must prove in order to sue under private nuisance? |
|
Definition
1) Indirect interference
2) Damage
3) Unlawful interference |
|
|
Term
| In private nuisance, you must prove 'indirect' interference. Why not 'direct' interference? |
|
Definition
| If there is direct interference, you would sue under trespass to land. |
|
|
Term
| What is 'indirect interference'? |
|
Definition
It is where the nuisance starts on the D's land (rather than it starting on the Cs land)
'If I pile a large compost heap on my land, and it accidentally spills on to neighbours land, this would be indirect interference. Whereas, if I built a compost heap on by neighbour's land, this would be direct interference, which would = trespass tot he land'. |
|
|
Term
| Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] |
|
Definition
| A FLOOD OF WATER IS CAPABLE OF CAUSING A PRIVATE NUISANCE |
|
|
Term
| Is private nuisance actionable per se? |
|
Definition
| NO - the C must establisht hat they have suffered some damage - SPD or physical damage to property |
|
|
Term
| In private nuisance, can you sue for personal injury? |
|
Definition
| NO - you would pursue this under negligence. |
|
|
Term
| What must the 'damage' in a private nuisance claim do? |
|
Definition
| It must specifically affect the C's use or enjoyment of his land |
|
|
Term
| What must the 'damage' in private nuisance be? |
|
Definition
| It must be reasonably foreseeable |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to show that the damage caused by a private nuisance must be reasonably foreseeable? |
|
Definition
| Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] |
|
|
Term
| Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] |
|
Definition
| IN ORDER FOR A CLAIM UNDER PRIVATE NUISANCE TO SUCEED, THE DAMAGE MUST BE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| OVERHANGING BRANCHES CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE C'S PROPERTY. HELD = PRIVATE NUISANCE |
|
|
Term
| In order to establish a claim under private nuisance, the claimant must prove that the nuisance he is complaiining about constitutes 'unlwaful interference'. What does this mean? |
|
Definition
| Whether the activity that is causing the nuisance amounts to an unreasonable use of the land. If it does, then this will = unlawful interference. |
|
|
Term
| In order to establish a claim under private nuisance, for physical damage to property, what elements of the 'unlawful interference' test must be considered? |
|
Definition
i) Utility / public benefit of the activity
ii) Time and duration of the nuisance
iii) Isolated incident or continuing state of affairs
iv) Abnormal sensitivity
v) Malice
vi) Other misc factors |
|
|
Term
| In order to establish a claim under private nuisance, for SPD, what elements of the 'unlawful interference' test must be considered? |
|
Definition
i) Character of the neighbourhood / locality
ii) Utility / public benefit of the activity
iii) Time and duration of the nuisance
iv) Isolated incident or continuing state of affairs
v) Abnormal sensitivity
vi) Malice
vii) Other misc factors |
|
|
Term
| What are the different factors that may be considered in determining a private nuisance claim? |
|
Definition
i) Character of the neighbourhood / locality
ii) Utility / public benefit of the activity
iii) Time and duration of the nuisance
iv) Isolated incident or continuing state of affairs
v) Abnormal sensitivity
vi) Malice
vii) Other misc factors |
|
|
