 Issues

 Jim is likely to try to bring actions in nuisance and Rylands.

 Letitia is likely to want to sue for nuisance.
 Geraldine/Church likely to want to sue for smells from the small holding and R v F for
the fence.
 Definitions
 “Unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over
or in connection with it” Winfield & Jolowicz
 “…[A]n act or omission which is an interference with, disturbance of or annoyance to
a person in the exercise or enjoyment of his ownership or occupation of land” Clerk
& Lindsell
 Jim must prove/Geraldine
 An interest
 Interferance
 Damage
 Unlawful interference
 An interest
 Malone v. Lasky [1907] 2 KB 141

 Some uncertainty caused by
 Khorasandjian v. Bush [1993] QB 727
 Overruled by
 Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
 House of Lords held: only a person with exclusive possession of land can sue
 Licensee cannot
 Necessary to wether Jim has interest in this small holding.
 Consider the position of Geraldine and church property
 Examples:
 Actual (physical) damage to land e.g. by flooding, noxious fumes or vibrations.
 Interference with amenity/use and enjoyment e.g. by smells, dust, noise
 Encroachment e.g. tree roots or overhanging branches
 Interference with an easement or right of way
 Church bell’s = noise. This is an example of an interference
 Bone v Seal – smell
 To determine whether the use is reasonable, the following is taken into account.
 Locality
 Duration of the interference
 Abnormal Sensitivity
 Public Benefit
 Malice
 Locality
 Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852
 “What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in
Bermondsey” per Thesiger LJ
