Exam tort comp - essay PDF

Preview

Summary

essay...

Description

This essay will advise each party their potential rights under the tort’s private nuisance and the rule of Ryland v Fletcher. “Private nuisance may be described as unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over it, or in connection with it” - Read v Lyons.1

Neil Private nuisance is classified as a proprietary tort concerned with protecting interests relating to land or property. In Hunter it was declared that actionable private nuisance may take the form of either (i) encroachment on land, (ii) property damage or (iii) interference with enjoyment of land. It is evident that Neil’s enjoyment of his property is being interfered by the pub’s landlord, and therefore and the claim that should be brought forward by Neil against the pub’s landlord is private nuisance. Through the case of Hunter v Canary Wharf2, it was established that noise and vibrations could be classed as nuisance. Neil has been impacted by the noise so much that he struggles to get to sleep. To satisfy the criteria for interference for private nuisance, it must also be unreasonable, and these are done by assessing the following factors: locality/neighbourhood, (over)sensitivity, cost, malice, social utility, extent of interference, fault. It’s evident from Pwllbach v Colliery Co Ltd v Woodman3 that the locality of the interference is important since the same noise level in different environments would impact differently. Lord Neuberger introduced a circular approach in Coventry v Lawrence4 stating the locality may be determined by the defendant’s own conduct. It was also held that if own a football stadium and it causes annoyance, don’t use your stadium as the argument for locality, and nuisance still applies. If applying that here the pub is not an argument for locality. A few people sympathise with Neil, however none believe it to be that serious apart from one – Willow who is stated to be sympathetic towards him. This is important as Walter v Selfe5 states private nuisance won’t protect over sensitive. Nevertheless, because the noise created is frequency the duration would be sufficient to aggravate a reasonable person Cunard v Antifyre Ltd6. Parties must prove that their use of their land presents a social benefit. This brings forth the argument that the pub is a social benefit to many people, and it is only at the expense of one other person. Its seen in Dennis v Ministry of Defence7 this would only be valid if the nuisance occurring was less than a reasonable amount. It could be argued that Neil’s disturbed sleep (schedule) can count for an unreasonable amount of damage. The defences against private nuisances are: statutory authority, consent to the nuisance, and contributory negligence, but don’t apply within the English law of Tort. It’s stated that Neil bought the house 2 years ago and the nuisance has occurred since he moved, and 20 years haven’t elapsed.

1

[1945] KB 216 [1997] AC 655 3 [1915] AC 634 4 [2015] UKSC 50 5 (1851), 29 L.J.R. 6 [1933] 1 KB 551 7 [2003] EWHC 793 2

In order to bring a claim under private nuisance according to Hunter v Canary Wharf8, the claimant must have an interest, which is lawful in the land. As Neil owns his house, he is the landowner providing him sufficient interest to gain title to sue: Foster v Warblington9.

It is arguable that the pub landlord is not at fault as he is may not directly be causing the interference the noisiness is caused by his establishment, therefore still liable to be sued for the authorisation of the nuisance: Tetley v Chitty10. As well as this he cannot absolve himself of liability for his customer’s actions due to the frequency of which they occur. If the nuisance was infrequent, it may be different, displayed in Hussain v Lancaster City Council. The rate of recurrence suggests that the landlord has authorised the actions of his customers as they continuously are a nuisance. The creation of a nuisance makes an individual liable to be sued according to Hall v Beckenham Corporation11, this criterion is fulfilled by the landlord which enables him to be sued. Injunctions can be sought by both parties, which is an equitable remedy. Neil could choose damages in lieu of injunction, allowing the pub landlord to carry on, but has to give Neil compensation for the future interferences that he has to face in the future. Neil, however, seems to be greatly affected by the interference, therefore it is his choice between compensation or “quiet enjoyment of his land”.

Willow Since Willow is living in her home rent free, it would mean she has no interest in the land, therefore she would not be in title to sue Oak - Malone v Laskey12. However, her father can authorise conduct on the part of his tenant which inevitably creates a nuisance: Tetley v Chitty13. Much like Neil, Willow is disturbed by noise, but from her neighbour Oak who is the islands only carpenter. Due to her interference with enjoyment of land, this qualifies as a private nuisance. It is reasonable for Willow to be disturbed by the noise, as it keeps her up often until 1 am, as discussed with Neil. However, it is arguable that the social benefit of Oak is great due to him being the only carpenter in town, but this would only be relevant if the nuisance was not more than unreasonable, as discussed with Neil. It is stated Oak’s activity during the day is fairly quiet, however during the night is loud. The cost to do the activity he does in the morning at night, and what he does at night in the morning would decrease the disturbance during the night-time. This could arguably be done with minimal cost to Oak and simultaneously reduce the nuisance that Willow is facing. The remedy could be the same as it was with Neil and the landlord, or Oak can swap his night and day time activities.

8

[1997] AC 655 [1906] 1 K.B. 648 10 [1986] 1 All ER 663 11 [1949] 1 KB 716 12 [1907] 2 KB 141 13 [1986] 1 All ER 663 9

Lord Summerisle In Rylands v Fletcher14 the risk materialised when the water flooded neighbouring property – it escaped and caused damage. However as seen in Read v Lyons & Co15 where there was explosion in a munitions factory; the explosion didn’t spread past the factory, meaning there was no liability. The escape must literally leave the place. Due to the injury occurring on Summerisle’s land the Ryland and Fletcher Doctrine would not apply.

1095

BIBLIOGRAPHY 14 15

[1868] UKHL 1 [1945] KB 216

Coventry v Lawrence [2015] UKSC 50 Cunard v Antifyre [1933] 1 KB 551 Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793 Foster v. Warblington Urban District Council [1906] 1 K.B. 648 HALL V BECKENHAM CORPORATION [1949] 1 KB 716 Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655 Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KB 141 Pwllbach Colliery Co Ltd v Woodman [1915] AC 634 Read v Lyons [1945] KB 216 Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 Tetley v Chitty [1986] 1 All ER 663 Walter v Selfe (1851), 29 L.J.R....