Tort Law- Private nuisance
Wringe v cohen
Ds building was in a state of disrepair and collapsed onto Cs property
Sedleigh denfield v O'callaghan
a drain became blocked, as a result cs land was flooded
Khorasandjian
C was subjected to unwanted telephone calls from an ex partner. C lacked a proprietary interest, hence the HoL subsequently disapproved this decision
st helens smelting Co v Tipping
damage caused by pollution from industrial activity which was damaging trees on Cs property which was physical interference, which private nuicance will apply strictly, however where the claim relates to comfort and convenience, the courts engage in a balancing exercise
barr v biffa
D operated a landfill into which it tipped odorous waste, the environment agency had granted D a waste management permit. C lived in a near by house and complained of the strong smells that drifted over. the court decided in favour of D by pointing at the waste management permit, this was reversed as the permit was not transformative as it was in gillingham
Robinson v Kilvert
Cs premises situated above Ds. heat is generated by manufacturing process rose into Cs premisis and damaged sensitive paper
D was not held liable as they were abnormally sensitive
Miller v Jackson
C moves house to a property adjoining a cricket pitch, the locals love this pitch, C complains that cricket balls are beign struck and are damaging the Cs property. C claimed she did not feel safe in her own home.
injunctive relief was refused
christie v davey
the parties lived in adjoining semi-detached houses in brixton. D was annoyed by the music lessons given by C. D in retaliation banged on the parties wall, beat trays and shouted. the noises by D were not of the legitimate kind'
D was held liable, permanent injunction imposed and music hours were imposed
hollywood silver fox farm
D fired gun with the aim of upsetting Cs sensitive silver foxes. this caused the animals to abort and devour their young. D was held liable having acted maliciously
bradford corp v pickles
D deliberalty interfered with percolating water, so as to reduce supply to Cs land with the aim of prompting C to purchase his land at a suitably high prince
held: Ds conduct was lawful and C had no right to uninterrupted supply of water
goldman v hargrave
Ds tree was struck by lightning (this lighting can be called an operation of nature) the tree caught fire and became a source of danger to the property of the plaintifs. D took inadequated steps to alleviate the risk, the fire spread and damage to the plaintifs property
D held liable
leakey v national trust
due to its geological structure, Ds land was prone to subsidence
helbeck hall hotel v scarborough council
due to a coastal erosion, a cliff on land belonging to D collapsed into the sea, Cs hotel was destroyed. at trial the C succeeded as D should have followed the advise of its geological experts and spent money countering the problem of coastal errosion
the CoA reversed this decision (whilst accepting D owed C a duty of care) duty did not extend to latent defects
Network rail v williams and waistell
Japanese knotweed, which had grown of Ds land, encroached onto williams property and that of waistell.
the recorder judge held that network rail had reached a duty it owed to the Cs land and caused a continuing nuicance and damage.
the CoA upehld this decision but because it limited their amenity not their financial assests