This document discusses potential nuisance claims between several parties: Jim, Letitia, Geraldine, and the Church. Jim and Letitia may pursue nuisance claims, while Geraldine and the Church could argue smells from a small holding or fence constitute a nuisance. To prove nuisance, one must show an interest in the land, interference with that interest, and damage that is unlawful. Locality is also a key consideration in determining what constitutes a nuisance.
This document discusses potential nuisance claims between several parties: Jim, Letitia, Geraldine, and the Church. Jim and Letitia may pursue nuisance claims, while Geraldine and the Church could argue smells from a small holding or fence constitute a nuisance. To prove nuisance, one must show an interest in the land, interference with that interest, and damage that is unlawful. Locality is also a key consideration in determining what constitutes a nuisance.
This document discusses potential nuisance claims between several parties: Jim, Letitia, Geraldine, and the Church. Jim and Letitia may pursue nuisance claims, while Geraldine and the Church could argue smells from a small holding or fence constitute a nuisance. To prove nuisance, one must show an interest in the land, interference with that interest, and damage that is unlawful. Locality is also a key consideration in determining what constitutes a nuisance.
This document discusses potential nuisance claims between several parties: Jim, Letitia, Geraldine, and the Church. Jim and Letitia may pursue nuisance claims, while Geraldine and the Church could argue smells from a small holding or fence constitute a nuisance. To prove nuisance, one must show an interest in the land, interference with that interest, and damage that is unlawful. Locality is also a key consideration in determining what constitutes a nuisance.
Jim is likely to try to bring actions in nuisance and Rylands.
Letitia is likely to want to sue for nuisance. Geraldine/Church likely to want to sue for smells from the small holding and R v F for the fence. Definitions “Unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over or in connection with it” Winfield & Jolowicz “…[A]n act or omission which is an interference with, disturbance of or annoyance to a person in the exercise or enjoyment of his ownership or occupation of land” Clerk & Lindsell Jim must prove/Geraldine An interest Interferance Damage Unlawful interference An interest Malone v. Lasky [1907] 2 KB 141 Some uncertainty caused by Khorasandjian v. Bush [1993] QB 727 Overruled by Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655 House of Lords held: only a person with exclusive possession of land can sue Licensee cannot Necessary to wether Jim has interest in this small holding. Consider the position of Geraldine and church property Examples: Actual (physical) damage to land e.g. by flooding, noxious fumes or vibrations. Interference with amenity/use and enjoyment e.g. by smells, dust, noise Encroachment e.g. tree roots or overhanging branches Interference with an easement or right of way Church bell’s = noise. This is an example of an interference Bone v Seal – smell To determine whether the use is reasonable, the following is taken into account. Locality Duration of the interference Abnormal Sensitivity Public Benefit Malice Locality Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852 “What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey” per Thesiger LJ