Nuisance Private Nuisance
Defnition: - An unla unlawf wful ul inter interfe ferrence ence with with a pers person on’s ’s use of land, land, or some right over or in connection with it.
Objectives: - To To balance the conicting interests between neighbours - To To decide at what point an interference becomes intolerable Types o Intererence: - Encroachment onto the plainti’s land - entering into someone else’s propert!" - E.g: #verhanging branches from a neighbour’s tree into the plainti’s garden - Davey v Harrow The court held the defendant liable for encroachment of land under private nuisance where the roots of trees from the defendant’s propert! had entered the plainti’s ad$oining propert! and caused damage to it. - Physica !amage to the plainti’s land actua !amage !amage to the - %her here the the pla plainti su suered ered actua propert!. - E.g: A renovation causes crac&s to appear on the plainti’s propert!' water overow from the defendant’s propert! causes damage to the plainti’s house. - Hotel Continental SB v Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion SB The court granted an in$unction even though the piling wor&s to the defendant’s hotel were temporar!
as it had caused crac&s to appear on the plainti’s heritage building. - Intererence with the plainti’s comfort and convenience (amenit! nuisance) - %here the plainti does not suer an! ph!sical damage to his propert!, but feels discomfort. - %here he is unable to live peacefull! on his land as a result of the defendant’s activit!. - %here the defendant’s activit! becomes intolerable. - E.g: *ontinuous noise, foul smell, fumes, dirt, dust. - Bone v Seal The court held the defendant liable as foul smell coming from a pig farm for + !ears was a nuisance. - Tetley v Chitty The court held the defendant liable as noise coming from a go-cart trac& which could be heard in the plainti’s house was a nuisance.
Eements: +. There must be a substantial interference - The plainti must have suered damage. - Hotel Continental SB v Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion SB The court granted an in$unction even though the piling wor& to the defendant’s hotel was temporar! as it had caused substantial interference, which was the appearance of crac&s, on the plainti’s heritage building.
. nreasonableness - "ue: The interference must be unreasonable before it can be considered unlawful. - TE#T of reasonableness According to /uc&le! 0 in Saunders-Clark v Grosvenor Mansions Co Ltd, The court must consider whether the defendant is using the propert! reasonabl! or not. 1f he is using it reasonabl!, there is nothing which at law can be considered a nuisance, but if he is not using it reasonabl! then the plainti is entitled to relief."
$actors !etermining reasonabeness: +. 2ocalit! - 1t is a relevant factor in cases of personal in$uries. - %hat is considered a nuisance in one countr! ma! not be considered a nuisance in another. - The character of a localit! ma! change over time' therefore the same activit! ma! give rise to an actionable nuisance at a particular time, but not at a later time. - %hat is regarded as e3cessive in a certain localit! would be considered unreasonable, thus amounting to a substantial interference. - 4owever, if the interference causes ph!sical damage to the propert!, then the localit! or surrounding circumstances becomes irrelevant. - Laws v Florinplae The court held the defendant liable as a se3 shop in a residential area was considered unreasonable, thus ma&ing it a nuisance. . 5eriousness of the interference
- 1f the defendant’s activit! is onl! ta&ing place once a wee& and does not cause an! ph!sical damage to the plainti’s propert!, then it is not unreasonable, and cannot be considered as a nuisance. 6. 7uration of the interference - The defendant’s activit! must be continuous and disturbs the plainti e3cessivel!. - E.g: The roots of a tree belonging to the defendant that had spread to the plainti’s propert! and caused crac&s to appear is a continuous nuisance until the defendant has 83ed it completel!. - 4owever, a temporar! and isolated incident can be considered as a nuisance if it has caused ph!sical damage to the plainti’s propert!. - E.g: 9enovation wor& on the defendant’s propert! causes crac&s to appear on the plainti’s propert!. - 1t will onl! be reasonable if no ph!sical damage was caused. :. 4!persensitivit! - The abnormal sensitivit! of a person or his propert!. - The law does not ta&e into account h!persensitivit! of the plainti or his propert!. - 4owever, once unreasonable and substantial interference is proved, h!persensitivit! becomes irrelevant. - 4!persensitive plaintis Those that wor& shift hours; late night - E.g: 7octors, nurses - 4!persensitive propert! #b$ects;Pets which are abnormall! sensitive to certain conditions - E.g: 5pecial 8sh, delicate owers etc. - M!innon "ndustries v #alker The court held the defendant liable for the damage arising from the defendant’s activit! towards the plainti’s delicate orchids along with other plants. - $o%inson v !ilvert
The court held the defendant not liable for the damage towards the plainti’s brown paper, as ordinar! paper would not have been aected b! hot air, ma&ing the plainti’s propert! h!persensitive. <. =alice - /eing malicious A person who has bad motives or intentions. - The law does not protect a person who is being malicious. - A person who commits an act out of malicious intent ma! be held liable. - Christie v Davey The court granted an in$unction against the defendant for shouting, !elling, hammering and banging on the ad$oining wall of the plainti’s house as the acts were committed maliciousl! to anno! the plainti. - Hollywood Silver Fo& Far' Ltd v (''ett The court granted an in$unction against the defendant for maliciousl! 8ring gunshots near the plainti’s min& farm to scare the plainti’s fo3es and prevent them from breeding.
%ho can sue in private nuisance& - 1n order to bring an action in private nuisance, the plainti must have an interest in the property aected. - Plainti must have a connection to the propert!. - E.g: 4as title, ownership or is an occupier of the land. - %here a house is $ointl! owned, both have title to the propert!. - This e3cludes those without interest, thus a person cannot sue without an interest in the land.
- E.g: 4otel guests, licensees, a wife, children etc. - Malone v Laskey The court denied the plainti her remed! for the in$ur! that she suered arising from the defendant’s construction site as she did not have an! interest in the propert!.
%ho can be sue! in private nuisance& - The person responsible for creating the nuisance, the occupier or the landlord.
Public Nuisance
Defnition: - >rom the case )G v *+) ?uarries 1t is an unlawful act which endangers the lives, health or comfort of the public or a substantial section thereof." 'ategories: +. *ases which satisf! the re@uirement of private nuisance but aect a much larger number of people (more than one person). . *ases which involve interference with safet! or convenience of members of the public, but do not satisf! the basic re@uirements for an action in private nuisance.
Eements: +. =ust show that the person aected b! constituted the public or a section of the public.
nuisance
- )G v *+) ,uarries The court granted an in$unction and held that a few houses aected b! the dust and vibration from the
defendant’s @uarr! activities were enough to constitute the public as there was a sucientl! wide impact. - (or! Denning: There is no speci8c number to amount to a public. 1f the activit! aects a representative cross-section of the societ!, it is enough to be a public.
. The plainti must show special damage. - The damage is a direct and substantial loss be!ond that suered b! the general public. - The t!pe or e3tent of damage is more serious than what is suered b! other persons e3posed to the same interference. - E.g: Personal in$ur!, damage to propert!. - $ose v Miles The court held the defendant liable for bloc&ing the river with his boat as the loss of time, mone! and addition transport cost was sucient special damage to support the plainti’s claim.
Di)erences nuisance:
bet*een
pubic
Pubic Nuisance The plainti is not re@uired to have an interest in the propert!. 7oes not necessaril! concern land. The plainti needs to prove that he constitutes the public or is a section of the public. An action is commenced b! a class or group of plaintis. The plainti must have suered
nuisance
an!
private
Private Nuisance The plainti must have an interest in the propert!. *oncerns propert! and land. The plainti is not re@uired to be a part of the public. 1t is an action between individuals. The plainti must have
a direct and substantial loss suered substantial damage over and above the rest of the caused b! the interference. members of the public. 1t is a tortious act and a crime. 1t is onl! a tortious act.
7efences +. 9ebuttal - %here the defendant counter-argues and contends that his activit! is reasonable. . 5tatutor! authorit! (>or both, private and public nuisance) - %here there is a statute which allows the defendant to conduct the activit!. - )llen v Gul .il $e/ning The court held that the defendant had a defence of statutor! immunit! where a statute authorised the defendant to carr! out oil re8nement wor& even though the plainti complained of the noise, smell and vibration. 6. Act of nature - %here events occur out of the control of defendant and without an! human intervention - E.g: 4eav! rainfall, earth@ua&es, landslide. :. *onsent - %here the plainti had consented to the defendant’s activit!. 1nvalid defences
+. *oming to the nuisance - %here the defendant contends that his propert! had been there 8rst, and it was the plainti’s fault for choosing to live there. - 1t is invalid as under the >ederal *onstitution, the plainti has a right to move to wherever he wishes. - Thus, the defendant cannot prevent the plainti from living there, and the plainti has a right to bring an action under private nuisance. - 4owever, onl! an action to minimiBe the nuisance can be brought against the defendant. - E.g: An action to shut the defendant’s factor! down cannot be instituted. . Public bene8t - The usefulness of the defendant’s activit!. - The defendant cannot contend that his activit! is not a nuisance because it will bene8t the public. - )da's v 0rsell The court held that the defence of public bene8t was invalid and cannot be raised b! the defendant even though the public often ate at his 8sh and chips shop as the continuous smell of 8sh was a nuisance.
9emedies +. 1n$unction - A court order to the defendant to minimiBe the nuisance. . 7amages - To compensate for ph!sical damage to the propert! or personal in$ur!. 6. Abatement (#nl! for private nuisance) - %here the parties ta&e the law into their own hands. - The defendant see&s permission from the plainti to remed! the situation.
- E.g: The defendant as&s for the plainti’s permission to cut o the tree.
