Private Nuisance - Revision Guide

<p>Hunter v Canary Wharf (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Nuisance requires continuous interference whereas negligence does not. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They have suffered special damage beyond that of the affected class. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Special damage distinct from general public inconvenience. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>If the defendant knew or ought to have known about the risk of the nuisance. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Mowing your lawn in a private backyard. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>An action brought in the name of the Attorney General representing a private citizen. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The Attorney General typically does not support them without clear damage. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>No public nuisance was determined due to lack of foreseeability. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They must show they have suffered special damage beyond public impact. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Statutory authority granted for specific actions. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The nuisance was an inevitable consequence of the authorized operation. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Injunctions and damages. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Public nuisance can be established regardless of the foreseeability of harm. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Strict liability applies if harm occurs from something brought onto land. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The item must be brought onto the land by the defendant. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>R v Rimmington (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Public nuisance does not allow for long-term user rights. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The activity of piping water was considered routine. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Special damage beyond what is suffered by the public. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Read v J Lyons &amp; Co (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Non-natural use involves extraordinary or dangerous activities. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The fire was not considered an item brought onto the land. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Natural items are exempt from the rule. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Initial presumption of liability unless otherwise disproven. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Damage must occur outside the property for liability. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Routine water supply lines burst without causing damage. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

If the defendant has been carrying out the activity for 20+ years without complaint, they acquire a right.

A court order to stop the nuisance. It's like a judicial 'stop sign' for the nuisance activity.

The claimant consenting to the activity means they can't later complain about it as a nuisance.

When a nuisance is caused by an act of God, like a natural disaster, it may be a valid defense.

If the defendant's actions were necessary to prevent greater harm, it may be a defense to nuisance.

In order to bring a civil claim for public nuisance, the claimant must demonstrate that they have suffered harm beyond that experienced by the general public.

The defendant is liable if they knew or should have known about the risk of the nuisance occurring. Foreseeability of the harm is crucial.

Public nuisance covers a range of disruptive behaviors that harm the public.

This action, brought by the Attorney General on behalf of a private citizen, is rarely used for public nuisance.

A lawsuit for public nuisance can be brought by a private citizen through a realtor action, by a local authority, or by statutory provisions.

Public nuisance involves actions that affect a considerable number of people, not just one or two.

To be considered a public nuisance, the conduct must have the potential to cause serious harm to the public.

A legal action brought by a local authority under the Local Government Act 1972, s.222, to address a public nuisance.

A private individual can sue for public nuisance only if they can prove they have suffered a unique and substantial harm, beyond that experienced by the general public.

If a defendant's actions are authorized by law, this can be a defense against a public nuisance claim.

The right to continue a nuisance due to long-term use, which is a defense in private nuisance, does not apply to public nuisance.

Monetary compensation for harm suffered from a public nuisance.

A court order to stop a nuisance from continuing.

A legal principle establishing strict liability for landowners who bring something dangerous onto their land, which could cause harm if it escapes.

Under the Rylands v Fletcher rule, the person responsible for bringing the dangerous thing onto their land must take steps to prevent its escape.

If a dangerous thing escapes from a landowner's property and causes damage, they are likely to be held liable for the harm.

The dangerous thing must be something you've brought onto your land, not something naturally occurring there. It should be artificial and pose a substantial risk. It cannot be something routine like pipes supplying water.

The dangerous thing must have escaped from your land and caused harm outside of your property. It's not enough for the danger to be present on your land, it must move off.

The use of your land must be considered unusual or extraordinary, exceeding normal activities. Using your land for things that are inherently dangerous or risky can trigger this rule.

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a strict liability rule. This means you will be found liable for the harm caused by the escape, regardless of whether you acted negligently or not.

The defendant must have brought something onto their land that is likely to cause harm if it escapes. This thing must be artificial and pose a special danger or risk, not a regular, everyday occurrence.

There must be an escape of the dangerous thing from the defendant’s land to another person’s property. The damage must occur outside the defendant’s property.

The defendant’s use of land must be considered non-natural or extraordinary. This involves something unusual or risky, beyond common activities.