Tort Notes Nuisance

Nuisance Private Nuisance

Defnition: - An unla unlawf wful ul inter interfe ferrence ence with with a pers person on’s ’s use of land, land, or some right over or in connection with it.

Objectives: -  To  To balance the conicting interests between neighbours -  To  To decide at what point an interference becomes intolerable Types o Intererence: - Encroachment onto the plainti’s land - entering into someone else’s propert!" - E.g: #verhanging branches from a neighbour’s tree into the plainti’s garden - Davey v Harrow  The court held the defendant liable for encroachment of land under private nuisance where the roots of  trees from the defendant’s propert! had entered the plainti’s ad$oining propert! and caused damage to it. - Physica !amage to the plainti’s land actua !amage !amage to the - %her here the the pla plainti su suered ered actua propert!. - E.g: A renovation causes crac&s to appear on the plainti’s propert!' water overow from the defendant’s propert! causes damage to the plainti’s house. - Hotel Continental SB v Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion SB  The court granted an in$unction even though the piling wor&s to the defendant’s hotel were temporar!

as it had caused crac&s to appear on the plainti’s heritage building. - Intererence with the plainti’s comfort and convenience (amenit! nuisance) - %here the plainti does not suer an! ph!sical damage to his propert!, but feels discomfort. - %here he is unable to live peacefull! on his land as a result of the defendant’s activit!. - %here the defendant’s activit! becomes intolerable. - E.g: *ontinuous noise, foul smell, fumes, dirt, dust. - Bone v Seal  The court held the defendant liable as foul smell coming from a pig farm for + !ears was a nuisance. - Tetley v Chitty   The court held the defendant liable as noise coming from a go-cart trac& which could be heard in the plainti’s house was a nuisance.

Eements: +. There must be a substantial interference - The plainti must have suered damage. - Hotel Continental SB v Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion SB  The court granted an in$unction even though the piling wor& to the defendant’s hotel was temporar! as it had caused substantial interference, which was the appearance of crac&s, on the plainti’s heritage building.

. nreasonableness - "ue:  The interference must be unreasonable before it can be considered unlawful. - TE#T of reasonableness According to /uc&le! 0 in Saunders-Clark v Grosvenor  Mansions Co Ltd, The court must consider whether the defendant is using the propert! reasonabl! or not. 1f he is using it reasonabl!, there is nothing which at law can be considered a nuisance, but if he is not using it reasonabl! then the plainti is entitled to relief."

$actors !etermining reasonabeness: +. 2ocalit! - 1t is a relevant factor in cases of personal in$uries. - %hat is considered a nuisance in one countr! ma! not be considered a nuisance in another. - The character of a localit! ma! change over time' therefore the same activit! ma! give rise to an actionable nuisance at a particular time, but not at a later time. - %hat is regarded as e3cessive in a certain localit! would be considered unreasonable, thus amounting to a substantial interference. - 4owever, if the interference causes ph!sical damage to the propert!, then the localit! or surrounding circumstances becomes irrelevant. - Laws v Florinplae  The court held the defendant liable as a se3 shop in a residential area was considered unreasonable, thus ma&ing it a nuisance. . 5eriousness of the interference

- 1f the defendant’s activit! is onl! ta&ing place once a wee& and does not cause an! ph!sical damage to the plainti’s propert!, then it is not unreasonable, and cannot be considered as a nuisance. 6. 7uration of the interference - The defendant’s activit! must be continuous and disturbs the plainti e3cessivel!. - E.g:  The roots of a tree belonging to the defendant that had spread to the plainti’s propert! and caused crac&s to appear is a continuous nuisance until the defendant has 83ed it completel!. - 4owever, a temporar! and isolated incident can be considered as a nuisance if it has caused ph!sical damage to the plainti’s propert!. - E.g: 9enovation wor& on the defendant’s propert! causes crac&s to appear on the plainti’s propert!. - 1t will onl! be reasonable if no ph!sical damage was caused. :. 4!persensitivit! - The abnormal sensitivit! of a person or his propert!. - The law does not ta&e into account h!persensitivit! of the plainti or his propert!. - 4owever, once unreasonable and substantial interference is proved, h!persensitivit! becomes irrelevant. - 4!persensitive plaintis Those that wor& shift hours; late night - E.g: 7octors, nurses - 4!persensitive propert! #b$ects;Pets which are abnormall! sensitive to certain conditions - E.g: 5pecial 8sh, delicate owers etc. - M!innon "ndustries v #alker   The court held the defendant liable for the damage arising from the defendant’s activit! towards the plainti’s delicate orchids along with other plants. - $o%inson v !ilvert 

 The court held the defendant not liable for the damage towards the plainti’s brown paper, as ordinar! paper would not have been aected b! hot air, ma&ing the plainti’s propert! h!persensitive. or both, private and public nuisance) - %here there is a statute which allows the defendant to conduct the activit!. -  )llen v Gul .il $e/ning  The court held that the defendant had a defence of  statutor! immunit! where a statute authorised the defendant to carr! out oil re8nement wor& even though the plainti complained of the noise, smell and vibration. 6. Act of nature - %here events occur out of the control of defendant and without an! human intervention - E.g: 4eav! rainfall, earth@ua&es, landslide. :. *onsent - %here the plainti had consented to the defendant’s activit!. 1nvalid defences

+. *oming to the nuisance - %here the defendant contends that his propert! had been there 8rst, and it was the plainti’s fault for choosing to live there. - 1t is invalid as under the >ederal *onstitution, the plainti has a right to move to wherever he wishes. - Thus, the defendant cannot prevent the plainti  from living there, and the plainti has a right to bring an action under private nuisance. - 4owever, onl! an action to minimiBe the nuisance can be brought against the defendant. - E.g: An action to shut the defendant’s factor! down cannot be instituted. . Public bene8t - The usefulness of the defendant’s activit!. - The defendant cannot contend that his activit! is not a nuisance because it will bene8t the public. -  )da's v 0rsell  The court held that the defence of public bene8t was invalid and cannot be raised b! the defendant even though the public often ate at his 8sh and chips shop as the continuous smell of 8sh was a nuisance.

9emedies +. 1n$unction - A court order to the defendant to minimiBe the nuisance. . 7amages - To compensate for ph!sical damage to the propert! or personal in$ur!. 6. Abatement (#nl! for private nuisance) - %here the parties ta&e the law into their own hands. - The defendant see&s permission from the plainti to remed! the situation.

- E.g:  The defendant as&s for the plainti’s permission to cut o the tree.