Summary - Tort Law Notes

LAND TORTS

Private Nuisance
-​ Private nuisance is any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a
substantial or unreliable interference with a plaintiff lands or his
enjoyment on the land as established by Bamford v turnley
-​ Liability depends on whether the defendant’s conduct was
unreasonable, negligent, or intentional.
Elements
-​ Interest in land
-​ Physical damage or unreasonable interference with the land
-​ Causation
Interest in land
-​ A claimant must own or have rights over the land, an example could be
owner or tenant as established by hunter v canary wharf
interference with land - what amounts to interference with land
-​ Encroachment so invading someone's territory can amount to private
nuisance. Interfering with someone quiet enjoyment on their land like
sleep also amounts to private nuisance. Direct physical injury like
driving over my neighbours garden and damaging it could amount to
private nuisance as stated by hunter v ldn docklands corporation.
-​ Noise can amount to private nuisance as stated by sturges v bridgman
-​ Water,fire,gas escaping for a short duration of time is sufficient for
private nuisance claim as a result of the dangers it could create as
stated by crown river cruises v kimbolton fireworks
Unreasonable - what amounts to as unreasonable use of land
Factors include
-​ Sensitivity of claimant
-​ Duration of nuisance
-​ Character of area
-​ Social benefit
-​ Malice by defendant
Sensitivity of claimant
-​ A defendant is not liable for private nuisance if the damage is caused by
the claimant's abnormal sensitivity as established in robison v kilvert
Duration of nuisance
A defendant can be liable for private nuisance if they create unreliable noise
that creates a state of affairs for a duration of time as stated by halsey v esso
Character of an area

, The character of an area refers to the use of land in one area compared to
another and what would actually amount to private nuisance.
Whether the use of property is to be seen as unreasonable and a private
nuisance depends on the locality as what would be a nuisance in Belgrave
would not necessarily be so in bermondsey as stated in sturges v bridgman.
Malice by defendant
If a landowners uses their property to disrupt a neighbour's enjoyment with
their land, then the landowner will be liable for private nuisance even though
their act was lawful, but they must have malice intent to be adequate as
established in the case of Hollywood silver fox farm v emmet.
Causation
-​ When testing for factual causation the test is but for the defendant
action would the claimant have suffered harm as established in the case
of r v white
-​ When testing for legal causation their needs to be proof that there was a
reasonable foreseeability of damage as established in the case of
wagon mound
-​ Defendant does not not need to prove there was reasonable care to
avoid nuisance, only needs to prove the type of nuisance was
reasonably foreseeable
Defence for the claimant to use if they are being handed a pn clam
-​ Statutory authority will provide a defence to an actionable nuisance as
stated in Allen v Gulf Oil Refining but defence may not be available if
the nuisance is beyond the scope of the original activity.
-​ Volenti so consent haynes v harwood the claimant knew well of the
risk of the nuisance and must have voluntarily agreed to them for the
defendant to avoid liability
-​ Contributory negligence under the law reform contributory
negligence act where the claimant knew of the nuisance but failed to
take reasonable steps to lessen the nuisance or may have contributed
to it
Remedies - for the person who suffered the injuries
-​ Damages which is a form of compensation such as financial
compensation
-​ Damages should only be given if the injuries to the claimant is small and
can be compensated through money as stated in shelfer v london
electric
-​ Abatement involves the reduction of the nuisance with the leading case
being lemmon v webb which established that a claimant can cut back