Summary
Summary private nuisance
- Module
- Human Rights
- Institution
- PEARSON (PEARSON)
private nuisance and rylands v fletcher
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Definition- an unlawful indirect interferencewith a person’s use of enjoyment of land
coming from neighbouring land
Private nuissance Hunter v canary wharf- HofL con
members of a household who do
interest in the land cannot claim
Occupier not responsible for creating the
The parties to an action- nuisance: McKenna v British Aluminium- o
- anyone who uses or enjoys the land and is Tetley v chitty- local authority who claimants, incl some children we
affected by an interference may claim allowed go- karting on its land was held claim in nuisance for the noise a
- the C must have an interest in the land liable for nuissance that came from D’s factory
- the person who is causing or allowing the
nuisance can be sued Sedleigh denfield v O’Callaghan – Elements of private nuisance- un
strangers blocked a culvert pipe on the d’s -c must prove that the D’s activit
There are 2 types of PN- land. He knew about it but failed to deal an unlawful use of land
- loss of amenity nuisance: when caused by with it and was liable when it led to - D’s use of land is unreasonable
noise, smell or smoke flooding on c’s land - court will attempt to balance th
- material damage nuisance, when a interests
dangerous state of affairs on the defendants
Indirect interference:
land causes significant physical damage to the Thompson- schwab v costaki- th
Loss of amenity- e.g. fumes drifting, smell
claimants land that the running of a brothel in a
from farm animals, noise ect
residential area in London amou
D can also be liable when the nuissance is a Material damage- e.g. vibrations, hot air
nuisance
result of a natural cause: rising, fire, cricket balls being hit into
Laws v florinplace ltd- an injunc
Leakey v national trust- d’s owned land with garden
awarded where a shop in an are
a natural mound on a hillside. Following a hot restaurant and some houses we
day, it slipped and damaged the claimants Hunter v canary wharf- buildings built
in a sex shop
cottage. D’s were liable. interferes with tv reception
, Rylands v fletcher
4 essential elements must be proven in It is not the escape th
order for it to be a successful claim- foreseeable, only that
-the bringing onto land and an foreseeable, if the thi
accumulation (storage)
Where a person’s property is damaged or destroyed by onto land does escape
- of a thing likely to cause mischief if it the escape of non-naturally stored material onto Hale V Jennings Bros-
escapes adjoining property plane’ car on a fairgro
- which amounts to a non-natural use Non-natural use of land- case law suggests that non- became detached from
of the land natural refers to some extraordinary or some unusual use assembly while in mo
- which does escape and cause of land. (Cambridge water co – the storage of chemicals in crashed. The owner w
reasonably foreseeable damage to a factory was a non-natural use of land) of injury was foreseea
adjoining property
The thing stored must escape and cause Stannard v Go
Rylands v fletcher- D, a mill owner, hired contractors to create a foreseeable damage- spread from D
reservoir on his land to act as a water supply to the mill. The Read v Lyons and co. Ltd- an explosion in fitting busines
contractors negligently failed to block off disused mineshafts. a munitions factory injured an inspector the C’s adjoini
Unknown to contractors, these shafts were connected to other and some employees. Rylands did not
mine works on adjoining land. When the reservoir was filled. apply in this case as there was no escape
Water then flooded neighbouring mines onto other land
The bringing onto the land- there must be a bringing onto land of a Recent examples of rylands v fletcher-
substance which is not naturally present on the land LMS international ltd- a fire started in D’s factory, the
- Giles v Walker- there was no liability when weeds spread onto factory contained a large quantity of flammable
neighbouring land as they were naturally growing material. The fire services arrived within 5 minutes of
- Ellison v Ministry of Defence- rainwater that accumulated being alerted however C’s property was still damaged. .
naturally on an airfield at Greenham Common did not lead to D was liable as thye had accumulated things which were
liability when it escaped and caused flooding on neighbouring land known as a fire risk
, Human rights- article 5
Article 5.1 (c) and 5.2
PACE 1984 was introduced to provide 5.1- No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following Section 24 PACE
specific rules for the police when cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law a police officer to
dealing with stopping, arresting, 5.1 (c) - The lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the person without a
detaining and questioning suspects purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on where he or she
If a police officer fails to follow the reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is an offence or is a
Codes of Practice there will not be reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an commit an offen
action against the police, instead the offence or fleeing after having done offence has been
evidence obtained in breach will be 5.2 - Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a the officer can ar
inadmissible at trial. language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of who they have r
any charge against him. grounds for susp
Arrest- S28 PACE 84 –requirements
guilty of the offe
for a valid arrest S1 and S2 of PACE 1984- A police officer may search any person or
1. Told the reasons vehicle and detain the person or vehicle for the purposes of the Hayes v chief con
2. Cautioned search. Merseyside polic
3. Told their rights The search can only be carried out to look for certain items. The out a 2-stage tes
4. Access to a sollicitor officer can only stop and search a person if they have reasonable 1) The officer b
If the police want to arrest someone, grounds for suspecting they will find the items. arrest is nec
they must apply to a magistrate for a This is an objective test. because the
warrant to authorise an arrest. They person was g
must provide reasons for the arrest. Section 28 PACE 1984 provides that the arrested person must be 2) Did the offic
The warrant can also permit the informed that they are under arrest and of the grounds for the reasonable p
police to enter and search the arrest ASAP suspicion?
premises. It is not necessary to use the words under arrest
The amount of detail the person must be told depends on each case
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller beth931. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.16. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67474 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now