Nuisance PDF

Preview

Summary

Quick case summaries for the Tort of Nuisance...

Description

Nuisance Private nuisance Case Thompson-Schwab v Costaki Raciti v Hughes

Ratio An affronting sight can be a nuisance The categories of nuisance are not closed. Surveillance cameras were a nuisance (after case of Bernstein v Skyviews) Young v Wheeler • Damages for removing the nuisance are paid by the D. Abatement costs are only recoverable by D from P if abatement has mitigated P's loss • The more arborous a locality, the more damage is needed to be shown for nuisance due to trees before an injunction can be granted Gray v NSW • Nuisance protects property value, not people • Test for nuisance = what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society ABC v Lenah Game Meats • Acts aren't necessarily private acts just because they're on private property • No action for breach of privacy Oldham v Lawson To sue, the plaintiff needs to have an interest in the land - can be owner or tenant. Hunter v Canary Wharf • Using land for ordinary purposes cannot be nuisance - erecting a building that blocked a TV signal was not nuisance • Also, the plaintiff needs to have a proprietary interest in the land to sue Stockwell v Victoria Actual possession of the land ∴ title to sue includes a tenant with exclusive possession, but not an owner without it Strata Plan No 13218 Trees encroaching on another's land can be nuisance v Woollahra Municipal Council to the owner of the tree De Jager v Payneham & Magill Lodges Occupiers liable for nuisance of a party who resides on the property with their permission Silservice Pty Ltd Queues are an actionable nuisance if: v Supreme Bread Pty Ltd - The crowd is attracted by something not bona fide necessary for the conduct of D's business and - The facility for D's business does not hold the crowd and - D could employ other reasonable means to minimise the damage to P Spicer v Smee "Private nuisance arises out of a state of things if one man's property whereby his neighbour's property is exposed to danger" - Atkinson J Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan Nuisance only if not reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society Public nuisance Act Luna Park Site Amendment Noise Control Act 2005 s 19A (1) (2)

States No noise abatement action may be taken against any person with respect to noise emission from Luna Park The emission of noise from the Luna Park site does

(3) (5) Case York Bros v Commissioner of Main Roads Seidler v Luna Park Reserve Trust

not constitute a public or private nuisance This section does not apply to or in respect of noise that exceeds the maximum permissible noise level at the closest residential facade Maximum permissible noise level = 85db or whatever is prescribed by the regulations Ratio The interference must be substantial and material to be actionable Held Luna Park liable for nuisance (the longer and more frequent an interference is, the more likely it is that the court will consider it to be unreasonable interference)

Street & 7 ors v Luna Park Sydney Pty

Actions in negligence for noise from Luna Park are barred by s 19A...