Critically Evaluate the Statutory Nuisance Case Law of Sturges v Bridgman - Essay Example

Topic: Critically Evaluate the sta y nuisance case law of Sturges v Bridgman. Style: Harvard Language Style: English UK Answer: Origins Of Nuisance At Common Law: 'There is perhaps no more than impenetrable jungle in the entire law', wrote Dean Professor,' 'than that which surrounds the word nuisance,' There are three types of nuisance which should be distinguished as private nuisance, public nuisance and statutory nuisance. Because of the various of history and the connection between the two forms, private nuisance has come to cover different types of conduct on the part of defendants. Indeed, beyond saying that all these instances are actionable because they are intolerable inconveniences, the only other common element is that they affect the claimants' use or enjoyment of their land. Determination Of Nuisance By The Courts At Common Law: Winfield and Jolowize define private nuisance as an 'unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection, with it'. Lord Lloyd in Hunter v Canary Wharf1 stated that private nuisances are of three kinds. They are (1) nuisance by encroachment on a neighbour's land; (2) nuisance by direct physical injury to a neighbour's land; and (3) nuisance by interference with a neighbour's quiet enjoyment of his land. In Malone v Laskey 2 it was held that only a person who has a proprietary interest in the land affected by the nuisance can sue, for example, owner or reversioner, or be in exclusive possession or occupation of it as tenant or under a licence to occupy. Any person who creates the nuisance can be sued, whether or not that person is the occupier of the land at the time of the action. Public nuisance, in contrast, is both a crime and trot. It is defined by Romer L.J in Attorney-General v P.Y.A. Quarries Ltd 3 'any nuisance is "public" which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's Subjects." Origins of Statutory Nuisance: However, now it needs to discuss about Statutory Nuisance. Where the common law proved to be ineffective or slow, the legislator has intervened in two ways: either by controlling the activity in advance or by providing expeditious methods of dealing with some of their obnoxious side-effects. The first method is to require certain trades (referred to as 'offensive trades, and described in Acts of Parliament or local by laws) to be licensed in advance by the local authority. S.107 (1) of the Public Health Act 1936 provides a list of such trades (e.g. fat-extractor, fat -glue maker, shop- or tallow- or tripe-boiler), all of which are likely to cause obnoxious fumes or smells, while other provision of the Act (as well as Local Government Act, s.235) enable local authorities to extend the scope of the legislation to other treads or business, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. The second method is to describe certain unacceptable states of affairs as statutory nuisances and to provide summary remedies for them. For instance, section 92 (1) of the Public Health Act 1936 described certain matters as 'statutory nuisances, if they were nuisances at common law, or were 'prejudicial to health' (described by s. 343(1) as 'injurious or likely to cause injury to health'). Run down or defective premises, whether an actionable nuisance or not, may come under statutory nuisance prejudicial to health; and the same qualification may apply to the keeping of animals and to accumulations or deposits, such as manure or refuse. The Clean Air Act 1956, section 16, also provided the emission of smoke might, in certain circumstance, be treated as a statutory nuisance for the purposes of the Public health Act 1936. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 was passed to consolidate much of this material and the current matters which amount to a statutory nuisance are to be found in section 79. Where a statutory nuisance has been committed, it will be usual for the local authority to serve abatement notice, which, if not complied with, will result in proceedings before magistrates. In other circumstance, failure to comply with the original abatement notice may itself be an offence without the need for the nuisance order. In the White Paper 4 and the subsequent legislative proposal (COM (2002) 17 final), the latter of which is under discussion in the EU Council and in the European Parliament. Key aspects of these proposals include: "Environmental damage is to be defined in the context of this proposal by reference to biodiversity protected at Community and national levels, waters covered by the Water Framework Directive and human health when the source of the treat to human health is land contamination. The Relationship Between A Common Law Nuisance And A Statutory Nuisance: There is little chance to conflict between statutory and private nuisance. If the nuisance has been continued for 20 years without interruption the defendant will not liable if s/he pleads a prescriptive right to the nuisance. In Sturges v Bridgman 5 Doctor built consulting room next to a confectioner's workshop, which had been operating for over 20 years; court held that the prescriptive right began on the use of the room. And for over twenty years the defendant has been using noisy machinery, which has not interfered with the plaintiff's use of his land until the latter built a consulting room at the bottom of his garden near the defendant's machinery and then complained about the noise. Prescription was pleaded as a defence but failed, since the nuisance commenced only when the new building was erected, since before then there was no right of action. This defence rarely succeeds in practice. In this case locality was an important issue. It was stated in Sturges v Bridgman 6 that: "What would be a nuisance in Belgravia Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey." It is no defence that the claimant came to the nuisance by occupying the land adjoining it. Nor is it a defence that the nuisance has only arisen because the claimant has chosen to use a particular part of his land: the law only protects the man in the reasonable use of his land against those nuisances, which the defendant has not acquired a prescriptive right to commit. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher 7, in contrast, is a specific rule named after a case in which Blackburn J in the Court of Exchequer Chamber stated: 'the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.' In Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather8, Lord Goff said that foreseeability of harm is a prerequisite of the recovery of damages in private and also public nuisance. Rylands v Fletcher established that, in a case to which the rule applies, the defendant will be liable even if he could not reasonably have foreseen that there would be an escape. In recent case Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 9 the Court held that The Rylands v Fletcher rule itself and the laws of private nuisance already in existence in the mid-19th century and still in existence today provide appropriate defences or, to adopt the current jargon, sufficient control mechanisms. Bibliography: Bell, S and McGillivray, D. (2006), "Environmental Law" 6th Edition, Blackstone Press, London Markesinis and Deakin, (2003), "Tort Law", 5th Edition, Clarendon Press-Oxford, Murphy. J., (2003), "Street on Torts", 11th Edition, LexisNexistm UK, Short. B (2003), "Environmental Law" (Nutshells S.) Sweet and Maxwell. Thornton. J and Beckwith, S., (2004), "Environmental Law" Sweet and Maxwell. Turner. C., (2004), "Unlocking Torts", 1st Edition, Hodder & Stoughton, London Yeats. I. M & Giliker. P., (2006), "Law of Tort", University of London Press, Read More