Plaintiff had built himself a house by a lake and Defendant started organising water skiing, etc., causing noise that made life intolerable for Plaintiff.
CA granted an injunction to limit the activity of speed boat racing to certain times, as a compromise based on the public interest.
In cases of continuing actionable nuisances, damages should only be awarded in lieu of injunctions in exceptional cases.
The Victorian case of Shelfer says that injunctions should generally be awarded in cases of private nuisance, not damages, and therefore Miller v Jackson was wrongly decided.
He says that, of course, we all have to put up with a certain amount of annoyance from our neighbours.
The guidelines are:
Intervention by injunction is only justified when the irritating noise causes inconvenience beyond what other occupiers in the neighbourhood can be expected to bear. The question is whether the neighbour is using his property reasonably, having regard to the fact that he has a neighbour.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Tort Law | Nuisance Notes (70 pages) |
Tort Law | Nuisance Notes (10 pages) |
GDL Tort Law | Private Nuisance Notes (9 pages) |