Nuisance being a separate tort in itself has been divided into public and private nuisance, the latter is defined as an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of land or some other interest in relation to its enjoyment. The objective principle or "reasonable user principle" is the important basis of the tort.
However in Hunter v. Canary Wharf the House of Lords stated that the distinction implied the creation of two separate torts.
The interference with use or enjoyment of land of claimant takes place through various ways, which includes adverse affect on negihour's sleep through vibrations and noises (Halsey v Esso Petroleum) and encroachment of roots (Solloway v. Hampshire CC) . The reasonableness of act is considered when determining on possibility of nuisance, so an action for nuisance may fail if found of reasonable use to the community and is of a temporary nature(Harrison v. Southwark). Reasonableness is dependent on variety of factors which include the duration of interference, sensitivity of the plaintiff, character of neighbor hood, and the defendant's fault.
Further the character of the neighbourhood may be a vital factor in case of interference with enjoyment or use. (Sturger v. Bridgman) However it is not important when physical damage to property is sustained. (St. Helens)
Finally the fault on the part of claimant can be found to be strict in certain situation while fault based in others. If it is found that the claimant continued the nuisance for example by annoying his neighbor through noises which are intolerable, then an injunction would be granted.(Christie v Davey)The traditional view has been to create a distinction between the creator of the nuisance (with strict liability) and one who carried on or adopted the nuisance (which is decided on the ground that whether the defendant knew or ought to have known of the nuisance) . By the case law it has been seen that the courts have ignored sensitivity issues when there is a strong possibility of malice.(Hollywood Fox v. Emmett).
The traditional position had been that only those having a legal interest could bring an action. However trespassers have been included. (Pemberton v. Sothwark)
The decision of the House of Lords in Hunter v. Canary Wharf is of significance because it scrupulously analyzed on the previous cases, upholding the traditional view. Lord Cooke argued that the right to sue could either be confined to those having an interest in the land or to those who live there; it entirely depended on the policy of law. Further Lord Goff stated that the current state of law could bring in certainty and efficacy. The decision of hunter can be considered to be an important aspect of looking at the interpretation given by the judges to develop the law. However it can be said that the dissenting opinion of Lord Cooke can be overridden by the fact that on follow up to ECHR it was found that all the applicants under hunter should be protected under Article 8 ECHR. Further it can be said that harassment an issue in Hunter can now be claimed under other heads rather than nuisance. (Khorasandjian v. Bush)In McKenna v British Aluminuim it was accepted that due to the Art8 claims based on property would be inappropriate. The development of the case law is therefore entirely dependent on the interpretation of judges of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The area of public nuisance has been said to be an unsatisfactory area covering loops of ...
Cite this document
(“Nuisance Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/law/307672-nuisance-essay
(Nuisance Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words)
“Nuisance Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/law/307672-nuisance-essay.
This paper evaluates a trespass case study. It also highlights the implications of trespass and merits of standard contract forms. Furthermore, it highlights a business operation case study. Question 1: At what point does a breach of planning control occur?
The paper will dissect the nature and extent of these tortuous actions and the remedies available to both parties. Private nuisance is the form is the tort in which ones right in the enjoyment of property is interfered with. It can either take the form of invasion or withdrawal or both (LaMance, n.d).
The house is located on Highfield Road opposite a factory unit (situated on Highfield Road in the Edward’s Industrial estate) owned by Harrington & Nephew Ltd. This is an area in which pre-cast concrete units are manufactured. Harrington & Nephew Ltd. was recently successful in winning various contracts which have resulted in the factory operating all day and throughout the night.
Chris is the Defendant and is represented by Kelly Greene, while Pat Calloway is representing NICE, the Plaintiff. Chris has agreed to testify on behalf of the defense, while Sam Anxious, the owner of an adjoining property to Northfield Farm is testifying on behalf of NICE.
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.
to tort laws, the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine states that, people who own land may be held responsible for accidents that occur to children trespassing on the land (Okrent 22). This law applies if the risk is caused by dangerous objects, or some features of the lands that are
Most IT companies with the interest in this investment are mid-sized companies. Efforts to ensure they minimize costs of running their business and increase returns forces the managers to use simple software like Excel and
4 Pages(1000 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Nuisance Essay for FREE!