(5) Private Nuisance

(5) Private Nuisance - Private nuisance defined: X would...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Private nuisance defined: X would probably sue Y in private nuisance. To claim damages for private nuisance, X would have to prove an unlawful damage to, or interference with the use and enjoyment of, his land. Because private nuisance is not actionable per se, X will have to show either actual physical damage or substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of his property. In this case, X can show actual physical damage because of ___________ / substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of his property because of ________. *Fault element addressed: Although some cases suggest that the fault element is required, SEDLEIGH DENFIELD V O’CALLAGHAN, private nuisance is more of a strict liability (or near strict liability) tort, which means that no fault on Y’s part does not preclude a claim in private nuisance. CAMBRIDGE WATER CO LTD V EASTERN COUNTIES LEATHER CO PLC . Therefore although Y is not at fault here because _____________, X can still sue for private nuisance. Can X sue: Locus standi: Only a plaintiff with locus standi, a proprietary interest in the property, can sue. Because X _________________, therefore he can sue/cannot sue. HUNTER V CANARY WHARF; EPOLAR SYSTEM ENTERPRISE PTE LTD V LEE HOCK CHUAN. Although the rules have been relaxed in KHORASANDJIAN V BUSH , it was overruled in HUNTER V CANARY WHARF and applied in SG in EPOLAR SYSTEM ENTERPRISE PTE LTD V LEE HOCK CHUAN. Eg of Locus Standi: Ownership, tenancy, lease, etc. constitutes interest in the property. Person in a hotel room or hostel room is only a licencee and therefore cannot sue because it does not constitute interest in the property. Who can be sued: General statement: Although Y is/is not the owner, he can still be sued for ________ in private nuisance. The test is who is responsible for the nuisance.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Did not cause but adopted: Although Y did not cause the damage, he can be liable for Z’s actions since he continues or adopts their nuisance. SEDLEIGH DENFIELD V O’CALLAGHAN Therefore since Y _______, therefore Y can be liable for Z’s actions. Off land: Although the nuisance was not caused from Y’s land, Y can still be liable for unlawful activities of licensees which injure P if they are committed with D’s knowledge. Therefore because Y ___________ he can still be liable because he facilitated the acts. LIPPIATT V SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL Landlord: D will not normally be liable for acts of his tenants unless he has specifically adopted or authorised those acts . HUSSAIN V LANCASTER CITY COUNCIL Therefore because D ____________ he is/is not liable. Natural acts:
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

(5) Private Nuisance - Private nuisance defined: X would...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online