1 / 22

Topic 4

Topic 4. Nuisance test. Topic 4 Nuisance test. Question 1. What is the definition of private nuisance?. Topic 4 Nuisance test. Answer 1. Private nuisance is an ‘unreasonable interference with another’s use or enjoyment of land’. Topic 4 Nuisance test. Question 2.

barrett-sullivan
Télécharger la présentation

Topic 4

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Topic 4 Nuisance test

  2. Topic 4 Nuisance test Question 1 What is the definition of private nuisance?

  3. Topic 4 Nuisance test Answer 1 Private nuisance is an ‘unreasonable interference with another’s use or enjoyment of land’.

  4. Topic 4 Nuisance test Question 2 If the nuisance causes actual physical damage, what effect will this have on the likely success of a claim?

  5. Topic 4 Nuisance test Answer 2 Discomfort or inconvenience will be sufficient for a claim in nuisance: there is no requirement for physical damage to have occurred. However, a claim involving actual physical damage is much more likely to be successful and may allow a claim that would otherwise fail, as occurred in St Helens Smelting Co. Ltd v Tipping (1865).

  6. Topic 4 Nuisance test Question 3 Why must the nuisance be ‘unreasonable’?

  7. Topic 4 Nuisance test Answer 3 The interference caused by the defendant must be unreasonable for a claim to succeed. This tries to balance the conflicting interests between the claimant and the defendant. Behaviour that goes beyond the normal bounds of reasonable conduct is regarded as unreasonable.

  8. Topic 4 Nuisance test Question 4 Was the behaviour in Southwark London Borough Council v Mills (1999) considered unreasonable?

  9. Topic 4 Nuisance test Answer 4 In Southwark London Borough Council v Mills (1999), the claimant bought a flat in a house that had been converted by the council. She complained that she could hear the residents of the other flats and blamed the council for not making the flats soundproof. The claim failed, as it was not unreasonable for the residents of flats to be able to hear their neighbours making everyday noise.

  10. Topic 4 Nuisance test Question 5 Explain why the claimant in McKinnon Industries v Walker (1951) was able to claim for the damage to his abnormally sensitive orchids.

  11. Topic 4 Nuisance test Answer 5 In McKinnon Industries v Walker (1951), fumes from the defendant’s factory damaged the claimant’s abnormally sensitive orchids. The claim, however, was successful as there was general damage as well.

  12. Topic 4 Nuisance test Question 6 What does a potential claimant require to be able to make a nuisance claim?

  13. Topic 4 Nuisance test Answer 6 Only people with an interest in the land can make a claim in nuisance (Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd and London Docklands Development Corporation,1995).

  14. Topic 4 Nuisance test Question 7 What are the three categories of potential defendant in a nuisance claim?

  15. Topic 4 Nuisance test Answer 7 • In a claim of nuisance there may be a choice of • whom to sue. A potential defendant could be: • the creator of the nuisance • the occupier of the land from which the nuisance originates • the owner of the land from which the nuisance originates

  16. Topic 4 Nuisance test Question 8 Why was the defence of prescription unsuccessful in the case of Sturges v Bridgman (1879)?

  17. Topic 4 Nuisance test Answer 8 There will be a defence of prescription where the defendant has been causing a nuisance continuously for 20 years, of which the claimant was aware and never complained about. In Sturges v Bridgman (1879), the defendant’s noisy machinery had been in use for over 20 years but the defence of prescription failed, as it became a nuisance only when the doctor extended his surgery closer to the defendant’s premises.

  18. Topic 4 Nuisance test Question 9 What is the definition of public nuisance?

  19. Topic 4 Nuisance test Answer 9 The definition of a public nuisance was provided by the Court of Appeal in the case of Attorney General v PYA Quarries (1957) as something that ‘materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects’.

  20. Topic 4 Nuisance test Question 10 What is ‘special damage’? Give a case example.

  21. Topic 4 Nuisance test Answer 10 (1) A person may wish to sue separately from the class if he or she has suffered more damage than the other people affected by the public nuisance, e.g. in Benjamin v Storr (1874) the claimant owned a coffee house in Covent Garden, adjacent to which was the defendant’s auctioneer’s yard. Horses used for delivery of goods to the defendant often obstructed access to the local shops, and the smell of their urine was strong.

  22. Topic 4 Nuisance test Answer 10 (2) The claimant suffered a loss of custom because the smell of the horses put off potential customers. The Court of Common Pleas held that the claimant had suffered direct and substantial damage over and above that suffered by the public at large, and was therefore entitled to sue in public nuisance.

More Related