9084 · 4.2.2
Private nuisance flashcards
Revision flashcards for Cambridge 9084 Private nuisance (syllabus 4.2.2). Flip, recall, then mark a real past-paper question.
Card
Private nuisance definition?
Unlawful indirect interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over or in connection with it. 'Unlawful' means 'unreasonable'.
Card
Who can sue in private nuisance?
A person with exclusive possession or a proprietary interest in the affected land, such as an owner or tenant. This was confirmed in *Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd*.
Card
What is the balancing exercise from *St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping*?
It distinguishes between physical property damage (where locality is irrelevant) and amenity nuisance (where locality is key). The court balances factors like locality, duration, frequency, and malice to determine reasonableness.
Card
What was the outcome of *Miller v Jackson*?
Cricket balls hitting a property were found to be a nuisance. However, due to the social utility of the cricket club, the court refused an injunction and awarded damages instead.
Card
What key principles came from *Coventry v Lawrence*?
It confirmed that 'coming to the nuisance' is not a defence. It also clarified that while planning permission doesn't authorise a nuisance, it can be relevant to assessing the character of the locality and the choice of remedy.
Card
How does nuisance differ from negligence?
Nuisance protects rights in land from unreasonable interference (fault is not required), whereas negligence protects against personal injury or property damage caused by a breach of a duty of care.
Card
What is the key test in private nuisance?
The test of 'unreasonable interference'. This involves the court balancing the claimant's right to enjoy their land against the defendant's right to use their own land, considering factors like locality, duration, malice, and sensitivity.
Card
Who has 'locus standi' (the right to sue) in private nuisance?
A person with a proprietary or legal interest in the affected land (e.g., an owner or a tenant). This was confirmed in *Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd*. Mere licensees, like family members without an ownership stake, cannot sue.
Card
What is the significance of the case *Sturges v Bridgman (1879)*?
It established the 'locality' principle, famously stating 'what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey'. The character of the neighbourhood is a key factor in determining unreasonableness for amenity nuisance.
Card
Explain the defence of 'prescription'.
This defence applies if the defendant can prove that the nuisance has been ongoing for a continuous period of 20 years and that the claimant has been aware of it during that time but has taken no action. The 20-year period starts when the activity becomes a nuisance to the claimant.
Card
What is the difference in how 'locality' is treated for physical damage vs. amenity nuisance?
Following *St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping*, if the nuisance causes physical damage to property, the locality is irrelevant. If it is an 'amenity' nuisance (affecting comfort and enjoyment, e.g., noise), the character of the locality is a crucial factor.
Card
What is the role of planning permission in a nuisance claim?
Planning permission does not automatically authorise a nuisance. However, as per *Coventry v Lawrence*, it may be relevant in assessing the character of the locality and in determining the appropriate remedy (e.g., awarding damages instead of an injunction).
Card
Can an occupier be liable for a nuisance they did not create?
Yes, if they 'adopt' or 'continue' a nuisance created by a third party, a predecessor, or even natural causes, and fail to take reasonable steps to abate it. Key cases are *Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan* and *Goldman v Hargrave*.
Card
What is 'abatement' of nuisance?
A form of self-help remedy where the claimant takes reasonable steps to stop the nuisance themselves, for example, by cutting overhanging branches. This must be done reasonably, and notice to the defendant may be required.