Tuesday 19th March 2024
Tort Law
LAND BASED TORTS
Obligations owed relating to land.
To claim under this tort have to show it’s not just nuisance but affected your use and
enjoyment of own property.
Something which has happened with your property and that only.
Public nuisance. A.G. V PYA Quarries (1957) 2 QB 169
“an action or omission which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of
life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects” Romer LJ – has to be serious e.g., pollution,
fireworks, bonfires, obstructive highway and noise from lorries. – more serious (supposedly)
Private nuisance
Any substantial and unreasonable interference with the claimant’s land or any right over or
in connection with its enjoyment e.g., not being able to sleep, read a book because of the
noise from next door. Essentially your own problem, must take action yourself. All about
rights connected to that land.
• Private nuisance is defined as a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference
with the use and enjoyment of land or some right over it.
• Person cannot use land in an unreasonable way which causes problems for another
person.
• How relevant is it today – exam – important if it is causing physical damage – most of
the time it is not so questions have to be asked (duration, locality)
If there has been a physical damage it is serious enough to be a nuisance – no
further questions.
St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) HL Cases 642.
Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 Ch D 852.
Dependant on type of area talking about e.g., busy city v countryside.
Walter v Selfe (1851) 4 DE G & SM 315
an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort physically of
human existence, not merely according to the dainty modes and habits of living, but
according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people" – essentially
reasonable man test.
Usually, continuous.
• Bridlington Relay Ltd v Yorkshire Electricity Board [1965] 1 ALL ER 264.
• Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] 2 ALL ER 426.
Economic interest is valued more.
, Reasonableness
• The law requires a balance between conflicting interests when considering
‘interference with use and enjoyment of land’. A consequence of Knight-Bruce’s
statement in Walter v Selfe is that people must learn to give and take, that there will
be a degree of irritation to put up with from one’s neighbours, but the law will
intervene if it does beyond a certain point. Thus the law has to strike a balance:
• (1) interests of their neighbour and (2) interests of the occupier.
• Abnormal sensitivity: Reasonableness is assessed by reference to ordinary standards,
not according to the abnormal sensitiveness of the claimant e.g.
• Robinson v Kilvert (1889) 41 Ch D 88 where very delicate paper was affected by
neighbouring tenant’s heat. Ordinary paper would have been OK.
• A person cannot put their property to some sensitive purpose and then complain when
it is interfered with.
Who can sue?
Basically, have to own land or have name on lease.
Malone v Lasky [1907] 2 KB 141 wife of the tenant was injured when a water
cistern fell on her. She could not sue because her name was not on the rent book.
Who can be sued?
Occupier
Creator of nuisance
Landlord
Landlord/Occupier - Who has control over property & causing nuisance will be used to
choose.
Defences
Act of God -
Contributory negligence. Statute.
Prescription NB only for private nuisance.
• Gillingham BC v Medway (Catham) Dock Co Ltd [1992]3 ALL ER 923 –
planning permission.
Tort Law
LAND BASED TORTS
Obligations owed relating to land.
To claim under this tort have to show it’s not just nuisance but affected your use and
enjoyment of own property.
Something which has happened with your property and that only.
Public nuisance. A.G. V PYA Quarries (1957) 2 QB 169
“an action or omission which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of
life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects” Romer LJ – has to be serious e.g., pollution,
fireworks, bonfires, obstructive highway and noise from lorries. – more serious (supposedly)
Private nuisance
Any substantial and unreasonable interference with the claimant’s land or any right over or
in connection with its enjoyment e.g., not being able to sleep, read a book because of the
noise from next door. Essentially your own problem, must take action yourself. All about
rights connected to that land.
• Private nuisance is defined as a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference
with the use and enjoyment of land or some right over it.
• Person cannot use land in an unreasonable way which causes problems for another
person.
• How relevant is it today – exam – important if it is causing physical damage – most of
the time it is not so questions have to be asked (duration, locality)
If there has been a physical damage it is serious enough to be a nuisance – no
further questions.
St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) HL Cases 642.
Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 Ch D 852.
Dependant on type of area talking about e.g., busy city v countryside.
Walter v Selfe (1851) 4 DE G & SM 315
an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort physically of
human existence, not merely according to the dainty modes and habits of living, but
according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people" – essentially
reasonable man test.
Usually, continuous.
• Bridlington Relay Ltd v Yorkshire Electricity Board [1965] 1 ALL ER 264.
• Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] 2 ALL ER 426.
Economic interest is valued more.
, Reasonableness
• The law requires a balance between conflicting interests when considering
‘interference with use and enjoyment of land’. A consequence of Knight-Bruce’s
statement in Walter v Selfe is that people must learn to give and take, that there will
be a degree of irritation to put up with from one’s neighbours, but the law will
intervene if it does beyond a certain point. Thus the law has to strike a balance:
• (1) interests of their neighbour and (2) interests of the occupier.
• Abnormal sensitivity: Reasonableness is assessed by reference to ordinary standards,
not according to the abnormal sensitiveness of the claimant e.g.
• Robinson v Kilvert (1889) 41 Ch D 88 where very delicate paper was affected by
neighbouring tenant’s heat. Ordinary paper would have been OK.
• A person cannot put their property to some sensitive purpose and then complain when
it is interfered with.
Who can sue?
Basically, have to own land or have name on lease.
Malone v Lasky [1907] 2 KB 141 wife of the tenant was injured when a water
cistern fell on her. She could not sue because her name was not on the rent book.
Who can be sued?
Occupier
Creator of nuisance
Landlord
Landlord/Occupier - Who has control over property & causing nuisance will be used to
choose.
Defences
Act of God -
Contributory negligence. Statute.
Prescription NB only for private nuisance.
• Gillingham BC v Medway (Catham) Dock Co Ltd [1992]3 ALL ER 923 –
planning permission.
