Card Set Information

2012-05-02 00:07:44

Show Answers:

  1. Canary Wharf
    • Canary Wharf prevented people from tuning in to their TV.
    • The residernts effected sued the building owners in nuisance
  2. Canary Wharf
    Two legal issues
    • 1-) whether interefence with television reception is capable of being an actionable nuisance
    • 2-) whether it is necessary to have an interest in the property to be able to claim in private nuisance
  3. Canary Wharf
    COA's decision
    "mere licensees" (spouses and children that lived with the legal tenant) had standing to sue
  4. Canary Whaft
    House of Lord's Decision
    Reversed the COA holding
  5. Canary Wharf
    House of Lords
    Lord Goff (Majority) Decision Only
    • "Mere licensees" excluded
    • Nuisance is a property tort. A property right can only be enforced by the property owner. Only those with legal interest, or "exclusive licence" can sue.
  6. Canary Wharf
    House of Lords
    Lord Goff (Majaority)
    Reason 1- systematic integrity
    • If mere licensees can bring an action in private nuisance, than this would lower the standard for liability in nuisance.
    • If it is easier to bring an action in nuisance than in negligence, then noone would bring an action in negligence.
    • This would overlook the fact that nuisance and negligence are different torts.
    • This would take over all the calibrated careful decisions of negligence.
  7. Canary Wharf
    House of Lords
    Lord Goff (Majority)
    Reason 2- Floodgates
    • The efficacy of arrangements depends on the existence of an identifiable person with whom the creator of the nuisance can deal with.
    • If there is a large and indeterminate class of people that the property develop needs to deal with, then it is going to make it too difficult for the property developer to reach those arrangements.
    • We should make decisions that would encourage people to make arrangements rather than sue each other.
    • Common law prefers private arrangments
    • Best contracts are nones that are never looked at again
  8. Canary Wharf
    House of Lords
    Comment on Lord Goff's decision
    promotes certainty and serves developers well
  9. Canary Wharf
    House of Lords
    Lord Cooke (Dissent) Decision only
    • Standing to sue in nuisance should extend to "anyone living there who has been exercising a continuing right to enjoyment"
    • Someone who is merely present in the house would be excluded (e.g. temporary visitors)
    • Would extend to mere licensees
  10. Canary Wharf
    House of Lords
    Lord Cooke (Dissent)
    Reason 1 international conventions
    • International conventions that protect a person's rights to be secure from interference in his/her home, including being free from nuisances, goes beyong possession or property rights.
    • While tort of nuisance started out recognizing the rights of land owners, it needs to be adapted.
    • Law of nuisance has been flexible and versatile throughout the common law history, it must adapt to modern living
  11. Canary Wharf
    House of Lords
    Lord Cooke (Dissent)
    Response to Lord Goff's analysis
    • Does not agree that it may overlook that nuisance and negligence are different torts
    • Unjust to refrain from laying down a rule on the ground that it is not easy to know where to draw the line
  12. Canary Wharf
    House of Lords
    Lord Cooke (Dissent)
    Reason 2: Senseless discrimination
    Wife and family residing with a tenant should be protected by the law of nuisance because they have a "right of occupation" just like the official tenant.
  13. Canary Wharf
    House of Lords
    Comment on Lord Cooke's decision
    • enables the recognition of new occupier interests
    • creates uncertainty
    • such decisions might be better left to the planning process
  14. Canary Wharf
    Interference with TV signals
    • is not capable of being an actionable nuisance
    • Nuisance generally results from something emanating from the defendant's land.
    • There are cases where nuisance does not result form something emanating (sight of prostitutes)
    • The mere fact that a building on the defendant land gets in the way and prevents something from reaching the plaintiff is not enough to create a nuisance
    • (perhaps there must be an emission).
  15. Greenwood
    • Glass roof of a verandah deflected the sun's rays so that a dazzling glare was thrown on to neighbors' buildings
    • Held to be a nuisance
    • (arguable whether there is an emission)
  16. is Canary Wharf binding on NZ Courts?
  17. Christie v Davey
    • Plaintiff: gives music lessons next door
    • Defendant: banged on the walls, shouted deliberately to spoil the music lessons
    • Malice can turn something that might not have been a nuisance into a nuisance
    • Injunction was granted againts the defendant
    • Most defendants do not admit to being malicious
  18. Hollywood Silver Fox Farms v Emmett
    • defendant deliberately scared the sensitive foxes by shooting in his own land (foxes ate their young when scared)
    • followed Christie v Davey
    • an occupier's right is balanced by reaosnableness
    • Malice overrides the defendant's arguments
    • 1-) plaintiff is not engaging in ordinary use(fox farming)
    • 2-) defendant is exercising a legal right)
  19. What are the two types of nuisances?
    • 1-) nuisance causing physical damage: actionable upon proof of damage provided that the injury is not merely trivial
    • 2-) nuisance causing discomfort: assessed in terms of what is reasonable which depends on the area (rural v urban OR residential v industrial)
  20. List the two cases in which the difference between two types of nuisances was outlined
    • 1-) St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping
    • 2-) Halsey v Esso Petroleum
  21. Nuisance causing physical loss
    • St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping: physical damage done to trees and shrubs, stock illness
    • Halsey v Esso Petroleum: physical damage caused by acid smuts
  22. Nuisance causing discomfort
    • assessed in terms of what is reasonable which depends on the area
    • you must look at whether it is a nisance to a person living in that area.
    • Halsey v Esso Petroleum: the smell was unacceptable whenever it emanated "far more than would affect a sensible person"
    • The noise was unacceptable at night
  23. In Sturges v Bridgman, was it relevant that the plaintiff came to nuisance?
    • No. If the activity is an actionable nuisance, than the defendant has to stop it regardless of how long it has been going on for.
    • Otherwise the defendant would effectively be dictating to the other party how they use their land, and in effect would be locking up the value of the plaintiff's land.
    • (doctor decided to build a consulting room at the end of his property, disturbed by the vibrations and noise emanating from the confectionary that has been next door for 20 years).
  24. In Miller v Jackson, was it relevant that the plaintiff came to the nuisance?
    • No, the majority in COA considered itself bound by Sturges v Bridgman
    • injunction was granted to the cricketers (operation of injunction was delayed for 12 months to allow the cricketers to find another ground)
    • Lord Denning MR (dissent): public interest should weigh against the granting of the injunction (damages should be granted instead of an injunction).
  25. In Kennaway v Thompson, was it relevant that the plaintiff came to the nuisance?
    • Coming to the nuisance was not relevant to liability, but was relevant to the remedy the plaintiff got.
    • COA granted an injunction severely limiting the amount of racing- the reason some racing was allowed was because the plaintiff knowingly came to the nuisance.
    • Injunction: is the appropriate remedy in the case of an ongoing nuisance (despite the minority in MvR). Otherwise nuisance creating defendants would be able to buy their way out of liability
  26. Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan
    Adopting Nuisance
    • Land owner will not be liable for nuisance created by someone else unless the owner can be said to have adopted it, or not remedied it within a reasonable time of it coming to her attention.
    • The defendant permitted the situation of the blocked drain to continue after he knew or ought to have known the situation
  27. Delaware Mansions
    • Roots constituted a nuisance
    • Allows the subsequent purcahser to recover damages for loss that really occured to a prior owner.
  28. Rylands v Fletcher
    • Strict liability
    • Special form of private nuisance which extends strict liability to isolated escapes from the defendant's land of harmful substances or things brought on to the defendant's land or accumulated there in the course of a non-natural use of that land.
  29. Autex Industries v Auckland City Council
    What difference would it make if Rylands v Fletcher did not exist?
    • Without Rylands v Fletcher, the burden of risk would be imposed on the injured party, for damage caused by isolated escape of inherently dangerous thing where the defendant is not negligent.
    • Whereas with Rylands v Fletcher, the burden of the risk is imposed on the party storing the dangerous thing.
  30. Autex Industries v Auckland City Council
    Why should we maintain Rylands v Fletcher?
    • 1-) the party who stores the thing is in the best position to determine the relative economics of preventing escapes and meeting insurance costs.
    • 2-) neigbors are unable to forestall an escape, they are not in a position to even know about the risks sometimes
    • 3-) strict liability is appropriate for activities which present an abnormal risk, even if all due care is taken
    • 4-) the more uncertain the cause of action the harder it is to reach settlements
  31. Hamilton v Papakura District Council
    • Nuisance requires the type of harm that is foreseeable.
    • Here the PDD was responsible for the herbicide in water, but they cannot have been said to have seen the adverse effect it would have on the plaintiff's sensitive tomatoes.
    • Foreseeability of damage was an essential element