Defences:-
Unlawful
Nuisance(private)
1. Ordinary use of land (Southwark LBC v Mills)
Interferences (St - Claimant must have an interest in the land
2. Statutory Authority (Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd)
3. Act of God (Nicholls v Marsland, Goldman v
Helens Smelting -
(Hunter v Canary Wharf)
Defendant just needs to have just used land not
Hargrave [aware and fails])
4. Prescription (Coventry v Lawrence [C aware of
be the occupier (Jones Ltd v Portsmouth City
Co v Tipping) : Council)
nuisance for 20 yrs ])
Public Policy (Dennis v MOD [Only used to not put an
Use or enjoyment of land interfered with injunction but instead award compensatory damages])
(Southwark LBC v Mills)
1. Locality 2. Frequency of activity 3. Sensitivity 4. Intensity of 5. Malice
Flooding (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callagham) activity
Industrial vs Residential Temporary activity may If C is abnormally If D’s actions are
Smells (Wheeler v JJ Saunders) (Hirose Electrical v Peak still constitute a sensitive, D not liable. Must be more malicious, more likely
Ingredients) nuisance (De Keysor’s than ‘dainty to be unreasonable.
Encroachment (Lemmon v Webb) If C’s use of land is
Royal Hotel v Spicer modes or habits’ (Hollywood Silver Fox
Planning permission can abnormally sensitive, D
Noise (Kennaway v Thompson) Bros) (Walter v Selfe) Farm v Emmett)
change nature of locality not liable. (McKinnon
Cricket Balls (Miller v Jackson) (Coventry v Lawrence) Industries v Walker)
Brothel (Thompson-Schwab v Costaki) 6. Time of day /
timing of activity
Remedies: Foreseeability
- Damages; Leads to loss of amenity or physical damage Damage must not be too remote.
(Cambridge Waters v Eastern Counties
- Injunctions.
Leather, Wagon Mound No.1)
Unlawful
Nuisance(private)
1. Ordinary use of land (Southwark LBC v Mills)
Interferences (St - Claimant must have an interest in the land
2. Statutory Authority (Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd)
3. Act of God (Nicholls v Marsland, Goldman v
Helens Smelting -
(Hunter v Canary Wharf)
Defendant just needs to have just used land not
Hargrave [aware and fails])
4. Prescription (Coventry v Lawrence [C aware of
be the occupier (Jones Ltd v Portsmouth City
Co v Tipping) : Council)
nuisance for 20 yrs ])
Public Policy (Dennis v MOD [Only used to not put an
Use or enjoyment of land interfered with injunction but instead award compensatory damages])
(Southwark LBC v Mills)
1. Locality 2. Frequency of activity 3. Sensitivity 4. Intensity of 5. Malice
Flooding (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callagham) activity
Industrial vs Residential Temporary activity may If C is abnormally If D’s actions are
Smells (Wheeler v JJ Saunders) (Hirose Electrical v Peak still constitute a sensitive, D not liable. Must be more malicious, more likely
Ingredients) nuisance (De Keysor’s than ‘dainty to be unreasonable.
Encroachment (Lemmon v Webb) If C’s use of land is
Royal Hotel v Spicer modes or habits’ (Hollywood Silver Fox
Planning permission can abnormally sensitive, D
Noise (Kennaway v Thompson) Bros) (Walter v Selfe) Farm v Emmett)
change nature of locality not liable. (McKinnon
Cricket Balls (Miller v Jackson) (Coventry v Lawrence) Industries v Walker)
Brothel (Thompson-Schwab v Costaki) 6. Time of day /
timing of activity
Remedies: Foreseeability
- Damages; Leads to loss of amenity or physical damage Damage must not be too remote.
(Cambridge Waters v Eastern Counties
- Injunctions.
Leather, Wagon Mound No.1)
