Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Private Nuisance Notes

GDL Law Notes > GDL Tort Law Notes

This is an extract of our Private Nuisance document, which we sell as part of our GDL Tort Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students.

The following is a more accessble 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:


Read v Lyons [1945] per Scott LJ: "... an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of his land, or some right over, or in connection with, that land."
o C must prove that there was:
 (1) an unreasonable interference; (property damage,
noise, smoke, smells)
 (2) with C's use or enjoyment of his or her land;
 (3) for which D is responsible.

Who can bring a claim:
o Claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land
(Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997], per Lord Lloyd - claimants argued that erection of Canary Wharf Tower caused a nuisance interfering with TV signal)
 Malone v Laskey [1907] - wife of man employed on land injured when engine vibrations from adjoining property shook a cistern loose. No interest therefore no claim.
 Khoransandjian v Bush [1993] - Dillon LJ stated that a personal licence was sufficient to sue for an harassment claim.
 Harassment Act has made this unnecessary and was overruled in Hunter.
o Impact of HRA 1998
 Issue of whether this condition affected article 6 (right to fair trial) right to enforce Article 8 (Right to Respect ones Family and Private Life)
 McKenna v British Aluminium Ltd [2003] - Over 30 claiamants sued in nuisance over the noise and fumes,
some of the children had no interest in the land.
 Strike out request failed in the light of the extension of Human Rights law to common law
 Dobson v Thames Water Utilities [2009] - It was not possible to rule out some damages being awarded under s 8 to a person other than the owner of the land,
but damages in nuisance are for property damage not for not the injury to the sensibilities of the occupiers.
 Area of law needs clarity.

Who can be sued:
o The creator of a nuisance:
 Thomas v NUM [1986] - miners had abuse shouted at them by picketers. Shouting was a nuisance and picketers s creators could be sued.
 Hussain v Lancaster CC [2000] - tenants racially abused claimant (another tenant). Held unless landlord authorises nuisance they are not generally to be sued but the person who created the nuisance should.

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Tort Law Notes.

More GDL Tort Law Samples