GDL Law Notes GDL Tort Law Notes
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Bamford v Turnley:– ‘any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a plaintiff’s land or his use or enjoyment of that land’
Must prove damage (not actionable per se) but can be ‘sensible personal discomfort’ as well as actual physical damage
Must have some duration and must be more than trivial
Who can sue?
Must have a legal interest in land (possessionary or proprietary – (freehold/leasehold))
Mere permission to use/occupy is insufficient
Basis for this is that a claim in nuisance arises from ‘interference with one’s land’
Malone v Laskey: land occupied by a manager and his wife was injured – she had no interest in the land and so no right to sue Hunter v Canary Warf
Position reaffirmed in
Scrutiny of the rule after the HRA 1998 – (McKenna v British Aluminium) – issue was whether there was an infringement of A6 and A8
Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd – confirmed position in Hunter v Canary Warf – C must have interest in the land to have a right to sue
Who can be sued?
The creator of the nuisance
Even if not in a position to end the nuisance and even if not the occupier of the land (Thomas v NUM)
The occupier of the land from where the nuisance is taking place
Can be liable for nuisances created by himself as well as those created by others – responsibility derived from the fact that he has control over the land and the occurrences upon it
Leakey v National Trust – NT liable for a large mound of earth which it had accumulated on its land, which collapsed onto the C’s neighbouring land – they had been aware of it and did nothing
Liable for nuisances caused by third parties in exceptional circumstances:
Independent contractors
If occupier has instructed them to perform tasks which cause reasonably foreseeable nuisance: Matania v National Provincial Bank: foreseeable excessive noise and dust caused by contractors altering his property – unusual as building doesn’t usually cause basis of a nuisance claim – people are expected to put up with the ‘live and let live’ in their daily living (Bamford v Turnley)
Predecessors in title
Liable of the successor continued or adopted predecessor’s nuisance
Trespassers
Liable if the occupier adopts the nuisance caused by trespasser
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan –D used poorly maintained pipe that had been unlawfully put under his land, so liable when it leaked
But an occupier may escape liability if he takes reasonable steps to abate the nuisance
Naturally occurring nuisances or natural condition of the land
Law traditionally absolved the occupier from liability
But Goldman v Hargrave – PC - occupier liable for naturally occurring nuisance where he knew or ought reasonably to have known of a danger and failed to take reasonable steps to abate it
However - a duty to abate is limited: will not be expected to bankrupt himself in the process of abating nuisance naturally occurring nuisance - Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC
The landlord
Not usually be liable for a private nuisance unless he has created it, or authorised it, or knew or ought to have known at the time of letting the property, or if he has expressly or impliedly reserved the right to enter or repair (Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council vs. Hussain v Lancaster City Council)
Tetley v Chitty – Landlord was held liable for leasing premises to a ‘go-cart’ club
Elements of private nuisance
Indirect interference
Sounds, smells, fumes, vibrations etc.
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan – flood of water held to be capable of constituting a private nuisance
Nuisance starts on the D’s land and then causes damage to some aspect of C’s use/enjoyment of land
Damage
Not actionable per se - must establish that they have endured damage
Only reasonably foreseeable recoverable (Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather)
Not possible to claim for personal injury in private nuisance (Hunter v Canary Warf)
HL in St Helens Smelting CO v Tipping – distinguished btw 2 types of damage – (a) physical damage to property and (b) sensible personal discomfort (SPD):
‘the personal inconvenience and interference with one’s enjoyment, one’s quiet, one’s personal freedom, anything that discomposes or injuriously affects the senses or the nerves’
Personal damage (Lemmon v Webb – overhanging tree branches causes physical damage)
Or SPD – where the senses of the C are affected– ‘amenity damage’ (Horsey and Rackley)
However – not all interference with the enjoyment value can be claimed– e.g. Hunter v Canary Warf – refused to recognise claim for interference with TV signal – nothing had been emitted from D’s land
Unlawful interference
C must show ‘unlawful interference with his enjoyment or use of the land’ – (Bamford v Turnley)
‘unlawful’ – unreasonableness more than illegality
Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather
‘although liability has usually been regarded as strict…if the user is reasonable, the D will not be liable for consequent harm to his neighbour’s enjoyment of his land’
Sedleigh Denfield O’Callaghan – ‘a balance has to be maintained btw the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with…but it may broadly be said that a useful test is perhaps what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or more correctly in a particular society’: reasonable in a particular context
Factors to be considered for unlawful interference
Factors with ARE relevant
Time and Duration
When the alleged nuisance takes place, how long it continues and how frequently it is repeated: determined with reference to all the circumstances
No liability for an isolated incident
Single incident could be a nuisance if it illustrates underlying state of affairs – Spicer v Smee – fire started in bungalow with defective wiring
British Celanese v AH Hunt Ltd: Power cut caused by bits of tin foil (used in...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Tort Law Notes.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
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 Started