Torts: Land Torts â Private Nuisance
Torts: Land Torts – Private Nuisance Introduction
- Nuisance: unlawful activity that is harmful/noxious + which interfered with another person’s rights, use or enjoyment of their land – Read v J. Lyons [1947].
- 3 related torts: unreasonable use of d’s land damage/loss to another. 1. private nuisance: most signif icant. 2. public nuisance: also crime. 3. rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
- Private nuisance: any continuous activity or state of affairs causing substantial + unreasonable interference with c’s land or c’s use/enjoyment of that land – Bamford v Turnley [1862]. not actionable per se: c. must prove damage – actual property damage or sensible personal discomfort.
Parties
Who Can Sue?
- C. must have proprietary or possessionary legal interest in land – Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997; HoL]. rationale: basis of tort is interference of use/enjoyment of land c. must have interest. licence insufficient – Malone v Laskey [1907]: land occupied by tenant’s employee + employee’s wife; wife injured by falling cistern (made loose by d’s activity next door) no right of action (wives: no legal interest in 1907). but blip: Khorasandijan v Bush [1993; CoA]: child allowed to sue (for harassment) overruled by Hunter – now covered by Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
- Nuisance: unlawful activity that is harmful/noxious + which interfered with another person’s rights, use or enjoyment of their land – Read v J. Lyons [1947].
- 3 related torts: unreasonable use of d’s land damage/loss to another. 1. private nuisance: most signif icant. 2. public nuisance: also crime. 3. rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
- Private nuisance: any continuous activity or state of affairs causing substantial + unreasonable interference with c’s land or c’s use/enjoyment of that land – Bamford v Turnley [1862]. not actionable per se: c. must prove damage – actual property damage or sensible personal discomfort.
Parties
Who Can Sue?
- C. must have proprietary or possessionary legal interest in land – Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997; HoL]. rationale: basis of tort is interference of use/enjoyment of land c. must have interest. licence insufficient – Malone v Laskey [1907]: land occupied by tenant’s employee + employee’s wife; wife injured by falling cistern (made loose by d’s activity next door) no right of action (wives: no legal interest in 1907). but blip: Khorasandijan v Bush [1993; CoA]: child allowed to sue (for harassment) overruled by Hunter – now covered by Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
