Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB tort law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Tort Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest results in ...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Public Nuisance
Act/omission which “materially affects the reasonable comfort & convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects” – Romer LJ in AG v PYA Quarries
Key: is the number of people affected sufficient to constitute a class? question of fact
Nuisance so widespread or indiscriminate in its effect that it’s unreasonable to expect one person to put a stop to it, but instead it should be borne by whole community(AG v PYA Quarries)
C doesn’t need to have an interest in any relevant land(Tate & Lyle v GLC)
Main uses
Obstructing public highways / navigation rights
Tate & Lyle GLC - D’s ferry terminals caused silting which obstructed large vessel’s access to C’s jetty & C had to spend money dredging. Private nuisance failed (jetty itself unaffected and no property right in river bed), but public nuisance succeeded (silt interfered w/public navigation right and C’s expenditure was special damage)
Obstacle on the highway constitutes actionable nuisance only if D did something that was unreasonable in circs electricity repairs, deliveries not unreasonable, unless very long.
Objects falling onto highway from adjoining premises
Liable if know / ought to have known of danger (Wringe v Cohen- D liable when his roof collapsed (owing to a want of repair) and fell onto C’s house next door)
Not liable should damage results from “secret and unobservable operation of nature, such as subsidence or the acts of TP” –Wringe
Carrying on an offensive trade
Throwing fireworks about the street
Holding a rave
Remedies
Prosecution by AG on behalf of the public [public nuisance is a crime]
Private citizens who suffer special damage over & above that suffered by the rest of the public
E.g. obstruction of public right of navigation causing special damage to the use of C’s vessels
“Particular damage” – pecuniary loss, inconvenience and delay (if appreciably dif in nature or extent to that suffered by general public
Claims for PI are allowed(Corby Group Litigation)
Private Nuisance
Recoverable in privatelaw
Preserve a balance b/w conflicting interests – occupier to use his land &neighbour’s quiet enjoyment of his
Activity/state of affairs causing substantial & unreasonable interference (need assessment of individual circs) w/C’s land, use or enjoyment of it
Not actionable per se (unlike trespass) C must first prove damage through tangible/ intangible interference with his use or enjoyment
Range of activities w/potential to constitute a nuisance
noxious fumes
smoke
noise
heat
generation of violent vibrations
Doesn’t include PI (though it did for a while)
In practical terms, C normally has a choice in which terms to phrase his action – negligence or nuisance (usual remedy in nuisance is injunction while in negligence it’s damages)
Was there interference
Encroachment onto neighbour’s land
Direct physical injury to land
Interference w/quiet enjoyment of land
Found:
Noise – Kennaway v Thompson (motor boat racing)
Smell – Wheeler v JJ Saunders (pig farming)
Emotional distress (brothel in neighbourhood)
Trespassers
Not found:
Blocking a view - Bland (otherwise no towns)
TV interference – Hunter v Canary Wharf – “man must be entitled to build on his own land”
Hunter v Canary Wharf - private nuisance actions by large no of Docklands residents re nuisances caused by Canary Wharf development; i.e. y dust during completion of the development &interference w/TV reception by the presence of completed tower. Unsuccessful – there may have been nuisance if TV reception was affected by activities on Ds’ premises (e.g. electrical discharges) but mere presence of a building was insufficient. Acceptance that C needs only a “substantial link” w/property affected would transform nuisance into negligence.
Can C sue?
Must have proprietary interest or de facto exclusive possession in the land – Hunter v Canary Wharf
Reasoning: the law isn’t remedying personal discomfort of persons affected, but diminution in value of the land (capital or just amenity value)
Can claim:
Owner
Occupier
Tenant w/de facto exclusive possession
Owner of easement of profit (sue for disturbance of his right)
Can’t claim:
Family/guests of the owner
Employees
Licensees
Must show he suffered damage
Material (i.e. property damage)
May infer damage w/out the need to prove it
Non material (i.e. amenity damage – personal discomforts; e.g. noise, smell and dust)
Need to prove (w/evidence) substantial annoyance b/c amenity damage is purely personal and personal sensitivity varies considerably
Can’t sue for PI b/c nuisance is a purely property tort (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
There must be a continuing state of affairs
Isolated escapes – try Rylands (no natural user) or negligence (prove fault)
Private nuisance claim can be maintained where damage was caused by isolated escape but it must be proved this arose from circumstances that themselves constituted a nuisance – SCM v Whittal
Can D be sued?
Occupier of the land where nuisance exists(e.g. tenant)
Basic liability lies w/occupier of land (e.g. tenant)
Simple case occupier created the nuisance
Difficult cases nuisance was created by:
Someone else lawfully on the premises
Occupier vicariously liable for employees
Unless an independent contractor except where owes “non-delegable” duty of care –when the work involves a special danger of nuisance
Trespasser, acts of nature, original owner
Occupier liable, if he continues or adopts the nuisance:
“continues" – w/actual or constructive knowledge of its existence fails to take any reasonable steps to end it (have regard to his individual circs – e.g. resources) though had ample time to do so
requirement of fault makes the claim more like negligence; but nicer to D b/c takes his resources into acc when assessing reasonableness
"adopts" - makes any use of the erection, building, bank or artificial contrivance which constitutes the nuisance
...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Notes.
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB tort law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Tort Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest results in ...
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