NKUMBA UNIVERTSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW AND INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

COURSEWORK

COURSE: Bachelor of Laws (LLB)

ACADEMIC YEAR: Year 2, Semester 1

COURSE UNIT: Tort 1

LECTURER: Mr.Abdul Nasser Kigozi

STUDENT NUMBER: 2200100635

STUDENTS INDEX NO.: 2022/AUG/LLB/B230747/DAY

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 20th sept, 2023

NUISANCE: case in focus is Miller v Jackson [1977] qb 966; in this case, cricket balls hitting claimant’s living house
constituted nuisance. Denning MR. at 980 of note described it as unreasonable use of man of his land to the detriment
of his neighbor .According to Winfield and Jolowitz on torts 8th edition, a nuisance is defined as unlawful interference
with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over it. It’s an annoying or hurting act or omission.
Private nuisance: It’s unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in
connection with it. In Gartner v Kidman (1962). Where claimant sued for the over flow of water from defendant’s land to
his. Court held a claimants favor of the claimant.
Private nuisance occurs in two ways: (a) Physical damage to land or property; its caused by the defendant’s act of
interference with plaintiff’s land causing material damage like neighbor causing flooding, fire or vibration. In corbbet v.
pallas [1995], a defendant’s pool over flooded to the claimant’s compound causing nuisance. (b) Interference with
enjoyment land of land, disturbance to comfort, health or convenience e.g. a neighbor causing air pollution, excessive
noise or light that directly affects the neighbors’ enjoyment of land a substantial & unreasonable way. Meaning not
every interference will constitute a nuisance. In Clarey v Principal and council of the women’s college (1953), claimant sued
for noise caused by students of the college in the premise resulting into a nuisance.
Elements Of Private Nuisance: (i)The plaintiff owns the property interfered with, or otherwise has the right to possess the
property interfered with; and (ii)The interference with the plaintiff’s enjoyment or use of their property was caused by an
act, or acts, of the defendant; and (iii)The interference caused by the defendant was substantial and unreasonable.
What constitutes an “interference” in a nuisance claim?
Noise. In Haddon v Lynch [1911] and Light. In Bank of New Zealand v. Greenwood [1984]1
Fumes. In field v soccer Association (sa)[1953] and Escaping bullets. In Evans v.Finn(1904)4 SR
Flooding. In Travis v vanderloos (1984) or Encroaching tree roots. In young v wheeler [1987] Aust tort report 80
Smell. In west v Nicholas (1915) and
Smoke. In Don Brass Foundry Pty Ltd v. Stead (1948) 48 SR

Who can sue for private nuisance? : Any person who owns or occupies land can sue for private nuisance. If the occupier is
not the owner, both the owner and the occupier can sue, although damages will be assessed differently in Alamdo Holdings
Pty Ltd v.Bankstown City Council [2003]NSWSC 1074. The case of Oldham v Lawson (No 1) [1976] VR 654 In that case, the
plaintiffs were a husband and wife who claimed damages for nuisance from noise from the adjoining house. The court
stated that: “Where husband and wife reside in the same house and it is the wife who is the owner, the husband has no
power to sue’’
What is public nuisance? Public nuisance occurs when there is an inference that affects the rights of the public. In In AG v.
PYA Quarries Ltd [1957]2 QB 169. Example of a public nuisance would be the obstruction of a highway or footpath, or a
defendant interfering with the general public’s enjoyment of a public place, such as a park, by acting in a disorderly,
offensive, threatening or violent way.
Elements of public nuisance: (i) the defendant acted in a disorderly, offensive, threatening or violent way. (ii) The
defendant’s behavior interfered with the public’s enjoyment of, or peaceful passage through, a public place. (iii) The
annoyance or discomfort was substantial and unreasonable. AG v. PYA Quarries Ltd [1957]2 QB 169. (iv) The plaintiff(s)
suffered particular harm or damage as a result of the defendant’s act(s) ‘In Benjamin v.Storr (1874) LR9 CP 400 and (v)the
particular harm or damage suffered was over and above that suffered by the public in general. Walsh v. Ervin [1952] Vlr
361
Defenses to nuisance claims:
Statutory authority: It is a defense to show that the act causing the nuisance has been authorized by legislation (i.e. noise or
air pollution caused by an activity that has been allowed by Parliament, such as the construction of a railway or other
infrastructure). However, it is important to note that it is not just the actual activity engaged in that must be authorized by
statute – if the activity was engaged in an unreasonable or unwarranted manner, the act may still constitute nuisance as in
Foxlee v.Proserpine Shire River Improvement Trust [1990]1 Qd R 111
Reasonable use: It is a defense to show that the defendant was reasonable in his or her action or behavior. However, the
onus is on the defendant to show that the act causing the interference was reasonable as was in Corbett v. pallas [1995]
Consent: It is a defense to show that the act engaged in that caused the interference was engaged in with the plaintiff’s
consent. Consent can either be express or implied as was in pwllbach colliery co. Ltd v. Woodman [1915] AC 63 and Lyttelton
Times Co Ltd v. Warners Ltd [1907] AC 476
Remedies for nuisance: If you have been the victim of nuisance, there are several remedies that may be available to you
depending on the circumstances of your claim:
Compensatory damages: The primary remedy for nuisance is damages. A plaintiff will usually seek damages where the
interference caused physical harm or where there has been an interference with lateral support (i.e. where land has been
adversely affected, such as the underground structure being weakened). Damages are also awarded for non-material
interferences. Damages can be awarded for actual loss suffered up to the date of judgment, but not for prospective loss.
Injunction: An injunction is a court order preventing a party from doing something. Injunctions are discretionary remedies,
which means that they may or may not be granted depending on a variety of factors, including whether damages would be
an adequate remedy.
Abatement (also known as self-help): A person may be entitled to enter the land of another or take other self-help measures,
upon giving of due notice, to abate a nuisance which substantially interferes with the enjoyment of one’s land (e.g. a
person may lawfully retake goods which have been wrongfully taken out of the person’s possession).

OCCUPIERS LIABILITY
It refers to the liability of the occupier of a premise/ property in respect of the injury suffered by a person who
enters it as a result of the state of the property or his negligence i.e. invitee or trespasser . According to lord
pearson in wheat v lacon & co (1966); the foundation of occupational liability is occupational control.in this
case a paying guest was killed by lightening when he tried to remove the bulb, court held the defendant wasn’t
liable. In London Graving Dock v Horton [1951], the plaintiff was injured owing to the in adequacy of certain
staging on a ship which he knew. Court held defendants were not liable as he had full knowledge of it. In wheel
v copas(1981), a plaintiff was injured while using a ladder he selected. The defendant wasn’t liable since there
was contributory negligence. In Fosbroke Hobbes V Airwork Ltd (1936), the court held the definition of premise
covered aircraft.
Liability of occupier under common law: (i) Invitee: a person who is the property by the express or implied
invitation of the occupier. He takes reasonable care of the invited.in Bird v Holbrook (1825), the defendant
wanted to protect some fruits but without putting notice set up a spring gun which married one of the legs of the
plaintiff. Court held the defendant liable. (ii) Licensees: At common law, the licensees are those who have been
given permission, express or otherwise to enter the promises. They are neither trespassers nor invitees. In
Greenhalgh v British Railway board [1969] 2QB286 in this case the claimant was injured crossing the railway
bridge which was built for people living there of which the claimant was not such a person. The defendant
wasn’t liable. In Snook v. Mannion[1982]QB in this case a motorist told the police man who had followed him on
his drive way in order to examine the amount of alcohol in his body to back off. Court held that the words used
towards the policeman’s presence would not stop license of permission to enter the driveway . (iii) Trespasser: is
a one who goes into the learn of another without permission and whose presence is either known to the occupier
or has been objected to, the general rule is , he who enters land wrongfully enters at his own risk but a
trespasser is not entirely without rights. The occupier therefore shouldn’t do anything that may injure the
trespasser. In Addie v.Dumbreck (1929),a wondering child into the land was killed when he climbed into the
pieces of apparatus and the defendant was made liable for no duty of care. In Latham v.Johnson (1913), court
held that the owner of a property is under a duty of care not to injure the trespasser willfully but he trespasses at
his own risk.
Standard of care: Sec.1 (4) OLA 1984 provides guidance as to the degree of care expected from the occupier
of the house to child visitors or any visitor in the house. In Phipps v.Rochester corp (1955), it was held that
parents were entirely responsible for the safety of very young children. In Lewis v. Ronald (1912), court held that
the occupiers were not liable since he was aware of the risk and he took it.In Revill v..Newbery[1996]2WLR, a
claimant having trespassed to the defendant’s premises was wounded by defendant. Court held that defendant
had a duty of care towards the trespasser however this decision was squash on appeal.in Ratcliff v.McConnell
1999 in this case court held that the claimant was not entitled to compensation
Defenses applicable to occupier’s liability Act 1957:
(i)Volenti non fit injuria- s.2 (5) OLA 1957; in white v.Blackmore (1972) no duty of care is owed in
respect of risks willingly accepted. This will be determined by the common law principles. (ii)Contributory
negligence: damages maybe refused for failure to take self-reasonable care; (iii) Warning: in a case of Phipps
v. Rochester (1955) it was a held that a licensor must give warning of any danger maybe expected while the
premise