Sem2 - L3 - Nuisance 1

Tort Law & Civil Remedies

Nuisance 1
© Staffordshire University Law School 2017

1. lecture introduction
What are we looking at today?
•
What is Nuisance
•
Environmental Tort?
•
Public Nuisance
•
Statutory Nuisance
•
Private Nuisance
•
Nuisance: Defences
•
Remedies
•
Nuisance & Human Rights
Page 1
•
The tort of Nuisance is concerned
with protecting a person’s interest
in their use or enjoyment of
property.
Page 2
EXAMPLES OF NUISANCE?
(ACTIONABLE NUISANCE THAT
IS!)
•
These can be split into 4 main types:
•
Public Nuisance
•
Statutory Nuisance
•
Private Nuisance
•
The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Page 3
2. Role of nuisance
•
Civil claims are often categorised as
‘environmental’ or ‘toxic’ torts as they
stem from losses sustained due to
exposure to hazardous
substances/environmental activities.
•
There is also crossover with Human
Rights law and breaches to Article 8:
Right to Respect to Privacy and Family
Life
•
Courts have a balancing act: claimants’
and defendants’ right to use/enjoyment of
their property
Page 4
3. Public nuisance
The leading case in this area was concerned
with whether quarrying activities which
resulted in stones, dust, vibrations etc.
amounted to a private or public nuisance:
AG v PYA Quarries
[1957] 2 QB 169
….a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or

so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to
expect one person to take proceedings on his own
responsibility of the community at large (Lord Denning)
Page 5
3. Public nuisance
Individuals can bring an action in public nuisance if they can
establish that they have suffered particular or ‘special’ damage
over and above that of the community at large:
Rose v Miles
[1815] 4 M&S 101
Halsey v Esso Petroleum Company Ltd
[1961] 2 All ER 145
Lyons v Gulliver
[1914] 1 Ch 631
Gillingham v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co
[1992] 3 All ER 923
Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd v GLC
[1983] 2 AC 509
Page 6
Learning Activity
Local residents complain about the noise of
machinery from a recently opened bakery. The
bakery was opened in a barn following the
restoration, and conversion of, the barn into small
business units. Jasper, has set up a financial
advice service in the adjoining unit. He complains
that the noise and grinding from the machinery
interrupts client interviews. He alleges that he
has lost several customers because of the noise.
Discuss
Page 7
4. Statutory nuisance
•
The common law is supplemented with statutory pollution controls.
For present purposes, the most relevant are those relating to
Statutory Nuisance.
•
Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990).
•
By virtue of s.79 EPA 1990, local authorities are under a duty to
inspect their areas for the existence of statutory nuisances.
•
S.80 EPA 1990 provides that where a local authority has identified
the existence of a statutory nuisance, they are under a mandatory
duty to serve an Abatement Notice on the person responsible for
the nuisance.
Page 8
4. Statutory nuisance cont…
•
Widened in scope by the implementation of the
Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993.
•
In essence, a statutory nuisance arises from a
nuisance that is considered to be “prejudicial to
health or a nuisance”…
Coventry City Council v Cartwright

[1975] 1 WLR 845
…likely to cause a threat of disease or attract vermin
Page 9
5. Private nuisance
Read v Lyons [1947] AC 156
...an unlawful interference with a

person’s use or enjoyment of land, or
some right over, or in connection
with it.
•
Although this case was brought under the rule in Rylands
v Fletcher, which we will look at next week, it highlighted
the key elements which need to be established in order to
bring a claim for private nuisance…
Page 10
5. Private nuisance
In any claim for Private Nuisance, there
are five main elements that have to be
satisfied:
•
Identify who can sue
•
Identify who is liable
•
Identify the type of damage
•
Determine whether the
interference was reasonable?
•
Can the defendant rely on any
defences
Page 11
6. Who can sue?
•
An action in private nuisance is only available to an
owner or occupier with a recognised legal or equitable
interest (which excludes the family of the occupier,
visitors etc.).
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
[1997] 2 All ER 426
•
Loss of TV signal to several hundred homes after
construction of One Canada Square in Canary Wharf
•
Held that loss of signal not actionable as it amounted
to equivalent to loss of view which had not been
previously actionable.
Page 12
7. Who is liable?
There are three potential

defendants in an action for private
nuisance:
•
The creator of the nuisance
(could be a third party with no
land ownership)
•
The occupier of the land
•
The occupier’s landlord
Page 13
7. Who is liable? Cont…
•
Historically no common law duty
imposed upon an occupier to
abate a nuisance arising from
natural causes or natural condition
of land
•
This has now changed and Lord
Wilberforce identified 3 relevant Goldman v Hargrave
factors: [1967] 1 AC 645
•
The occupier’s awareness and knowledge of the risk
•
The foreseeability of consequences of not abating or
checking the hazard
•
The defendant’s actual ability to abate it (subjective)
Page 14
8. Physical damage v amenity damage
•
Distinctions need to be made between
actual physical damage and loss of
enjoyment of property due to interference.
•
Where interference is concerned then
proof of a substantial level is required.
St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping
[1865] 11 HL 642
Cambridge Water Company v

Eastern Counties Leather
[1994] 2 AC 264
Page 15
9. reasonableness
Saunders-Clark v Grosvenor
Mansions and D’Allensandri
[1900] 2 Ch 373
…the court must consider
whether the defendant is using
the property reasonably or not.
If he is using it reasonably,
there is nothing which at law
can be considered a nuisance:
but if he is not using it
reasonably…then the plaintiff is
entitled to relief.
Buckley J
Page 16
10. Factors to be taken into account
•
When assessing amenity
damage the courts take into
account:
•
Locality
•
Utility
•
Duration
•
Abnormal Sensitivity
•
Malice or Intention
Page 17
11. locality
•
The courts will examine the locality in which the nuisance
arises…
Sturges v Bridgeman
[1897] 11 Ch D 852
What would be a nuisance in

Belgrave square would not be so
in Bermondsey
Thesinger LJ
Page 18
12. utility
•
It is also important to consider the social utility of the
defendants conduct and the impact that any
prohibition/injunction might have…
•
Adams v Ursell
[1913] Ch 269
•
Miller v Jackson
[1977] 3 All ER 338
Page 19
13. duration
•
The courts will take into account the duration of the
nuisance. The existence of a private nuisance is normally
associated with a continuing state of affairs…
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd v
Spicer Bros Ltd
[1914] 30 TLR 257
Crown River Cruises Ltd v

Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd
[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 533
Page 20
14. Abnormal sensitivity
•
Previously, the courts would not generally take into account
any abnormal sensitivity in determining whether or not a
nuisance has occurred in relation to either person or
property…. Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v
•
BUT now… Morris (t/a Soundstar Studio)
[2004] EWCA Civ 172
…whether it was foreseeable that specific
damage would be caused to a specific
claimant, a requirement that subsumed both
duty in fact and remoteness of damages and
was applied with the same generality as in
negligence cases
Page 21
15. malice
•
Where the defendants’ activity constitutes malicious
intention then this will not be considered reasonable…
Christie v Davey
[1893] 1 Ch 316
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v

Emmett
[1936] 2 KB 468
Page 22
16. defences
•
There are a number of available
defences in relation to claims of
Nuisance:
Prescription
Unforeseeable act of a stranger
Statutory Authority
Act of God
Consent
Page 23
17. prescription
•
If a nuisance has effectively been
present for 20 or more years then a
defendant can theoretically claim a
‘prescriptive right’.
•
The defendant must prove that any
interference amounted to an actionable
nuisance for the entire 20 year period.
Sturges v Bridgman
[1879] 11 ChD 852
Page 24
18. Unforeseeable act of a stranger
•
A nuisance arising from an act of a
third party or a stranger must be
unforeseeable.
Rickards v Lothian
[1913] AC 263
Page 25
19. Statutory authority
• Defendants cannot be held liable for interference that
directly results from a statutory authority – express or
implied
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd

[1981] AC 1001
Gillingham v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co

[1992] 3 All ER 923
Page 26
20. Act of god
This amounts to a
claim that an accident
occurred as a result of
natural forces outside the
control of the defendant
or anyone else.
Markesenis and Deakin

p781
Page 27
27. remedies
•
As per other torts, aim is to restore claimant to position
before they suffered the nuisance.
•
Seeking an injunction is oftentimes the most desirable
remedy in order to halt the nuisance…
Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88
N.B Lord Cairns decision to

allow damages in lieu of an
injunction should only be
used in exceptional
circumstances.
Page 34
consolidation
Page 35
Preparation
Preparation for next week
ü
Read through the lecture handout for
this session
ü
Access the worksheet for the
workshop and complete the pre-
workshop preparation tasks
ü
Make sure you come to the
Workshop prepared!
ü
Access the presentation slides for next
week’s large group session
Page 40

Sem2 - L3 - Nuisance 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sem2 - L3 - Nuisance 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tort Law & Civil Remedies

Tort Law & Civil Remedies

© Staffordshire University Law School 2017

….a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or

Coventry City Council v Cartwright

…likely to cause a threat of disease or attract vermin

Read v Lyons [1947] AC 156

...an unlawful interference with a

There are three potential

Cambridge Water Company v

What would be a nuisance in

Crown River Cruises Ltd v

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd

Gillingham v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co

Markesenis and Deakin

N.B Lord Cairns decision to

You might also like