Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (Lawful Visitors) PDF

PRIVATE NUISANCE – REVISION GUIDE ✅ Definition of Private Nuisance: Winfield: “Private nuisance consists of a continuous, unlawful, and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or with some right over or in connection with it.” Bamford v Turnley (1862) per Bra...

PRIVATE NUISANCE – REVISION GUIDE ✅ Definition of Private Nuisance: Winfield: “Private nuisance consists of a continuous, unlawful, and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or with some right over or in connection with it.” Bamford v Turnley (1862) per Bramwell B: “Any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a plaintiff’s land or enjoyment of that land.” Key Elements of Private Nuisance: To succeed in a private nuisance claim, the claimant must prove: 1️⃣ Legal Standing (Interest in Land) 2️⃣ Unreasonable Use of Land by the Defendant 3️⃣ Continuous and Indirect Interference 4️⃣ Harm to the Claimant 📌 1. Legal Standing (Who Can Sue?) A claimant must have a legal interest in the land to bring a private nuisance claim. 🔑 Key Case: Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd Claimants complained about loss of TV reception due to the Canary Wharf tower. Held: Only those with proprietary interests (owners, tenants) can sue in private nuisance. Visitors, family members, or lodgers cannot bring a claim. 📌 Other Cases on Legal Standing: Malone v Laskey – A wife injured by vibrations caused by a neighbor's machinery could not sue as she had no legal interest in the property. Khorasandjian v Bush – Initially allowed non-owners to sue, but this was overruled by Hunter. ⚖️ Human Rights Impact (Article 8 – Right to Private Life): Khatun v UK – The European Court of Human Rights ruled that nuisance claims may fall under Article 8 if interference affects private and family life. McKenna v British Aluminium – Children were allowed to claim under HRA 1998, despite no legal interest in the land. 📌 2. Unreasonable Use of Land by the Defendant The key issue is whether the defendant’s use of their land is unreasonable or exceeds ordinary and common use. Relevant Factors for Assessing Unreasonableness: Factor Case Relevance Sensitivity of Robinson v Kilvert No liability if only an abnormally sensitive the claimant (1889) claimant suffers damage. Time, Halsey v Esso Night-time noise is more likely to be a duration, Petroleum (1961) nuisance. intensity Character of Sturges v Bridgman Locality matters – what is reasonable in one the area (1879) area may be unreasonable in another. Foreseeability Cambridge Water v Foreseeable harm is required to impose of damage Eastern Counties liability. Malice by the Hollywood Silver Fox Malicious acts are more likely to be defendant Farm v Emmett considered a nuisance. 🔎 Hunter v Canary Wharf: What Counts as a Nuisance? Lord Lloyd in Hunter clarified that nuisance is more than mere annoyance. It must interfere with the use and enjoyment of land. Example: Loss of TV reception was not considered a nuisance because it didn’t interfere with use of the land itself. 🔎 Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery Facts: The Tate Modern's public viewing platform allowed visitors to look directly into nearby flats, causing a loss of privacy. Held: Supreme Court (Lord Leggatt JSC) ruled that the platform constituted a nuisance, focusing on whether the defendant's use of land was ordinary and common. Lord Sales JSC (dissenting): The test should remain reasonable, considering reciprocity and compromise between neighboring landowners. 🔑 Key Principle from Fearn: Lord Leggatt: Use of land should be assessed based on ordinary and common use rather than just reasonableness. ⚖️ Malice in Nuisance Claims: Case Principle Hollywood Silver Fox If a defendant acts maliciously to cause harm, it will be Farm v Emmett nuisance even if the act would otherwise be lawful. 📌 3. Continuous and Indirect Interference A nuisance must be continuous and indirect. Case Example De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Night-time piledriving was a nuisance despite being v Spicer temporary. Crown River Cruises v A 20-minute fireworks display causing physical damage Kimbolton was deemed a nuisance. 📌 4. Requirement of Harm The claimant must suffer some harm for a nuisance to be actionable. Nuisance is not actionable per se – actual damage must occur. Types of Harm:  Physical damage to property. Loss of amenity (e.g., noise, smells). 🛡️ Defenses to Private Nuisance: Defense Explanation Case Statutory If the activity is authorized by law, no nuisance Allen v Gulf Oil Authority claim can be made. Refining Prescription If the defendant has been carrying out the activity Sturges v for 20+ yearswithout complaint, they acquire a right. Bridgman (1879) Consent The claimant consented to the activity. Act of God The nuisance was caused by natural forces beyond human control. Unforeseeable The nuisance was caused by a third party beyond Act of the defendant's control. Stranger Necessity The defendant’s actions were necessary to prevent greater harm. 📌 Remedies for Private Nuisance: 1️⃣ Damages – Monetary compensation for harm caused. 2️⃣ Injunctions – Court orders to stop the nuisance. Kennaway v Thompson (1981) – Injunction to limit motorboat racing. 3️⃣ Abatement – The claimant may take action themselves to stop the nuisance (e.g., cutting overhanging branches). 📌 Relationship with Negligence: There is overlap between nuisance and negligence, particularly in terms of foreseeability of harm. Nuisance Negligence  Focuses on interference with land. Focuses on personal injury or property damage. Requires continuous and indirect Requires a breach of duty. interference. 📚 Key Cases to Remember: Case Principle Hunter v Canary Wharf Legal standing; nuisance must interfere with use of land. Fearn v Tate Gallery Focused on ordinary and common use vs. reasonableness. Sturges v Bridgman Character of locality is relevant. Cambridge Water v Eastern Foreseeability of damage is required. Counties Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Malice can make an otherwise lawful act a Emmett nuisance. Public Nuisance Definition: A public nuisance is a nuisance “which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects.” Key Case: Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd 2 QB 169 Romer LJ: “A person is guilty of a public nuisance (also known as common nuisance), who (a) does an act not warranted by law, or (b) omits to discharge a legal duty, if the effect of the act or omission is to endanger the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all Her Majesty’s subjects.” Differences Between Public and Private Nuisance: Public Nuisance Private Nuisance  Affects a representative cross-section of a class Affects an individual or specific of society. property. Is both a crime and a tort. Is a civil wrong. Requires proof of a class affected. Requires proof of legal interest in land. Requirements of Public Nuisance To establish a public nuisance, the following elements must be proven: 1. Nuisance Must Affect a 'Class' of People The nuisance must impact a sufficiently large group or section of the public. Key Case: Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd Facts: An injunction was granted to stop the defendant from emitting dust, stones, and vibrations from their quarry, which affected the local residents. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that a representative cross-section of the affected people is sufficient to establish a class. It is not necessary to prove that every member of the class was affected. Romer LJ: “The sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as 'the neighbourhood'; but the question whether the local community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons to constitute a class of the public is a question of fact in every case.” Case Examples: Case Facts Class of People Affected R v Ong Defendant planned to interfere with Football spectators. floodlights during a football match. R v Lowrie Defendant made hoax emergency calls. People in genuine need of emergency services. Rv Defendant sent racially offensive No public nuisance as it Rimmington materials to individuals. affected individuals, not a class.  Rv Defendant enclosed salt in an envelope No public nuisance as there Goldstein as a joke, causing an anthrax scare. was no intent to cause harm. 2. Special or Particular Harm (For Civil Claim in Tort) In order to bring a civil claim for public nuisance, the claimant must show that they have suffered special damagebeyond that experienced by the rest of the affected class. Key Case: Tate & Lyle v Greater London Council Facts: Tate & Lyle suffered economic loss due to obstructions in the river caused by the defendants. Held: Tate & Lyle could claim damages because they had suffered special damage that was distinct from the inconvenience experienced by the public at large. 3. Fault Element in Public Nuisance The defendant is liable if they knew or ought to have known about the risk of the type of nuisance that occurred. The test of foreseeability is similar to that in private nuisance. Key Case: R v Goldstein Facts: The defendant sent salt in an envelope as a joke. The salt leaked in a Post Office sorting office, causing an anthrax scare and an evacuation. Held: The House of Lords ruled that there was no public nuisance because the defendant did not know, nor could he reasonably have foreseen, that the salt would leak and cause harm. Examples of Public Nuisance Public nuisance can cover a broad range of conduct, including: Organizing or participating in a rave. Playing loud music. Urinating or defecating in public spaces. Lighting fires, fireworks, or barbecues. Consuming or selling nitrous oxide. Damaging public property or uprooting trees. Key Case: London Borough of Hackney v Persons Unknown An injunction was granted to stop antisocial behavior in London Fields park. The prohibited activities included: Raves. Loud music. Public urination. Lighting fires. Selling nitrous oxide. Civil Actions Against Public Nuisance There are three ways to bring a civil action for public nuisance: 1. By a Realtor Action A realtor action is brought in the name of the Attorney General on behalf of a private citizen. These actions are rare. Reasons why realtor actions are rare: 1. Local authorities usually bring public nuisance actions. 2. The Attorney General is unlikely to agree unless there is special damage. 3. Most public nuisances are covered by statutory provisions. 2. By a Local Authority Local authorities can bring actions under the Local Government Act 1972, s.222. 3. By a Private Citizen A private citizen can bring a tort claim if they can show they have suffered special damage beyond that experienced by the public. Defenses to Public Nuisance In addition to general defenses to tort (such as contributory negligence), there are specific defenses to public nuisance: 1. Statutory Authority If the defendant’s actions are authorized by statute, this can be a defense to public nuisance. Key Case: Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Facts: The defendant's oil refinery was authorized by statute. Held: The statutory authority defense succeeded, as the nuisance was an inevitable consequence of operating the refinery. 2. No Defense of Prescription Unlike private nuisance, prescription (the right to continue a nuisance due to long-term use) cannot be used as a defense to public nuisance. Civil Remedies for Public Nuisance The remedies available for public nuisance include: 1. Damages – Monetary compensation for harm suffered. 2. Injunctions – Court orders to prevent the continuation of the nuisance. Summary of Key Cases: Case Principle Attorney-General v PYA Public nuisance requires a class of people to be Quarries affected. Tate & Lyle v Greater London Claimants must show special damage to bring a civil Council claim. R v Ong Planning to disrupt a football match was public nuisance. R v Lowrie Hoax emergency calls caused a public nuisance. R v Rimmington Sending offensive letters to individuals was not public nuisance. R v Goldstein No public nuisance if harm was not foreseeable. Would you like additional examples or a practice problem to test your understanding? The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher Definition: The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher establishes strict liability for landowners who bring onto their land something likely to cause damage if it escapes. The person responsible must take precautions to prevent the escape, and if it does escape and causes damage, they are prima facie liable for the resulting harm. Key Quote: “We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” - Blackburn J. This rule was confirmed by the House of Lords in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. Key Requirements of the Rule The rule has been modified over time to include four key elements: 1. Something Brought Onto the Land The defendant must have brought something onto their land that is likely to cause harm if it escapes. The thing must be artificial (man-made) rather than naturally occurring. It must pose a special danger or risk. Key Case: Transco PLC v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 2 AC 1 Facts: Water escaped from pipes maintained by the local council, causing damage to nearby land. Held: The supply of water through pipes was considered a normal and routine activity that did not create any exceptional risk. Therefore, the rule did not apply. Lord Bingham: “Water in quantity is almost always capable of causing damage if it escapes. But the piping of a water supply from the mains to the storage tanks in the block was a routine function which would not have struck anyone as raising any special hazard.” 2. Escape 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. Key Case: Read v J Lyons & Co AC 156 Facts: Explosives detonated inside a munitions factory, killing and injuring people within the premises. Held: There was no escape from the defendant’s property, so the rule did not apply. Key Case: Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v Gore EWCA Civ 1248 Facts: A fire started on the defendant’s property, caused by tyres catching fire. The fire spread to neighbouring land. Held: The fire escaped, but the tyres (which were brought onto the land) did not. Since the fire itself was not a thing brought onto the land, the rule did not apply. 3. Non-Natural Use of Land The defendant’s use of land must be considered non-natural or extraordinary. A natural use is something ordinary, normal, or necessary. A non-natural use involves something extraordinary or dangerous. Key Case: Rickards v Lothian AC 263 Facts: An unknown person left a tap running, causing water to overflow and damage the plaintiff’s property. Held: The provision of water supply was considered a natural use of the land. Lord Moulton: “The provision of a proper supply of water to various parts of a house is not only reasonable but has become an almost necessary feature of town life.” Key Case: Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather PLC 2 AC 264 Facts: The defendant’s tannery spilled small amounts of chemicals (PCE) over time, which seeped into the ground and contaminated the claimant’s water supply. Held: The storage of substantial quantities of chemicals was a non-natural use of land. Lord Goff: “The storage of substantial quantities of chemicals on industrial premises should be regarded as an almost classic case of non-natural use.” 4. Foreseeability of Damage The type of damage caused must be reasonably foreseeable. This requirement was introduced in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather PLC. Lord Goff: “Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type should be regarded as a prerequisite of liability in damages under the rule.” This requirement aligns with the principle from Wagon Mound (No 1), which states that damage must be reasonably foreseeable to be compensable. Defences to the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher There are several recognised defences that can absolve the defendant from liability: 1. Consent (Volenti Non Fit Injuria) If the claimant consents to the presence of the dangerous thing on the defendant’s land, the defendant is not liable. Key Case: Carstairs v Taylor (1871) LR 6 Exch 217 Facts: Water stored for the benefit of both landlord and tenant escaped and caused damage. Held: The tenant had consented to the storage of water, so the landlord was not liable. 2. Act of God An act of God refers to natural events that are so extraordinary and unpredictable that they cannot be prevented. Key Case: Nichols v Marsland (1876) LR 2 Ex D 1 Facts: The defendant’s artificial lakes overflowed after unprecedented rainfall, causing damage to neighbouring land. Held: The defendant was not liable because the event was considered an act of God. 3. Act of a Stranger The defendant is not liable if the damage was caused by the deliberate actions of a third party over whom they had no control. Key Case: Perry v Kendrick’s Transport Ltd 1 WLR 85  Facts: A child threw a lit match into the petrol tank of the defendant’s bus, causing an explosion. Held: The defendant was not liable as the act was done by a stranger. 4. Statutory Authority If the defendant’s actions are authorised by statute, they may not be liable. Key Case: Charing Cross Electric Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co 3 KB 772 Facts: The defendant’s water mains burst, causing flooding. The defendant argued that they were authorised by statute. Held: The defence of statutory authority was allowed. 5. Contributory Negligence If the claimant’s own negligence contributed to the damage, the defendant’s liability may be reduced under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. Modern Developments and Criticisms The rule was established at a time of industrialisation and growing public concern over burst reservoirs. Australia has abolished the rule in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Limited. Scotland does not follow the rule, as seen in RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council. In English and Welsh law, the rule is increasingly seen as part of the tort of nuisance rather than a separate category. Summary of Key Cases: Case Principle Rylands v Fletcher (1868) Established the rule of strict liability for escapes. Transco PLC v Stockport Council Sets a high threshold for non-natural use. (2004) Read v J Lyons & Co (1947) No liability if there is no escape. Rickards v Lothian (1913) Non-natural use must be extraordinary.  Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Introduced foreseeability of damage as a Counties requirement. Nichols v Marsland (1876) Defence of act of God. Perry v Kendrick’s Transport (1956) Defence of act of a stranger. Would you like further examples or practice questions on this topic?