Cricket pitch law 42 note c3/16/2023 ![]() There are five main factors which, to date, have been used to determine unreasonableness - character of neighbourhood, claimant sensitivity, nuisance duration, public benefit, and defendant malice.Ĭharacter of neighbourhood refers to what might reasonably be expected of a particular area - so whilst it would be unreasonable for a factory to cause a lot of noise in the middle of an idyllic countryside setting, the same noise would likely be found reasonable if found in an industrial estate. The second key element of private nuisance is that of unreasonable interference - that is, use of land or property in a way which would foreseeably interfere with the claimant’s quiet enjoyment of their own land. What Constitutes Unreasonable Interference? This means that, as in 1907, private nuisance remains a matter of property rights, rather than personal rights. The House of Lords reinstated the proprietary interest requirement of Malone v Laskey, although added an amendment that a spouse’s beneficial interest (another property law concept) conferred upon him or her a proprietary interest. Some of the claimants were homeowners and leaseholders, whilst some were family members, lodgers, and others who lacked a proprietary interest. A number of residents living in the Canary Wharf area experienced interference with their television signals due to the construction of the 800-foot Canary Wharf Tower. The proprietary right requirement was reinstated in Hunter v Canary Wharf AC 655. ![]() It should be noted that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 came into force, providing a non-nuisance basis for injunctive protection from Khorasandijan v Bush type behaviour. On the basis that it would be absurd to not extend the protection of private nuisance to the claimant on the basis of her lacking proprietary rights, this requirement was overturned, and the injunction remained in place. An injunction was obtained against the defendant on the basis of private nuisance. He threatened her with violence and behaved aggressively towards her, even spending time in prison for threatening to kill her. The claimant, an 18-year-old woman, was subjected to a campaign of harassment by a 23-year-old man. Her claim in private nuisance failed - she lacked a proprietary interest in the property, and thus the tort was unavailable to her as a claimant.įor a brief period of time in the mid-90s, this requirement was removed, in the case of Khorasandijan v Bush QB 727. One day, the vibrations from the machinery next door caused the toilet cistern to fall from a poorly installed bracket, injuring the claimant. In property law terms, he was a licensee. ![]() She lived with her husband, who was allowed to live in the property because he was a manager employed by the business which let the property. The claimant lived next door to a business which used heavy machinery. A residence can, thus, cause nuisance to an industrial site.Ĭase in Focus: Malone v Laskey 2 KN 141 A factory might pour acrid smoke into a residential area - but it should also be noted that private nuisance does not just protect residential rights, but all land uses. As seen in Miller v Jackson, it can cover activities which take place on a piece of land. Nuisance does not have to be artificial - it can be naturally occurring, so encroaching branches can constitute nuisance, or a neighbour could plant a nursery of extremely smelly corpse flowers. Conversely, there is no need for the properties to be separate buildings, so claimant and defendant can live in flats in the same block. There is no requirement that the claimant and defendant properties be adjoined - so a neighbour two doors down can be a defendant in a case of nuisance. This can cover a wide range of neighbour-neighbour relationships. Secondly, that protection is from unreasonable interference. There are two primary features of nuisance - firstly, it involves the protection of the use of land (or property). Of note is the description of nuisance from Denning MR at 980: “The very essence of private nuisance is the unreasonable use of man of his land to the detriment of his neighbour.” The claim was successful - the cricket ball risk constituted nuisance. They thus sought an injunction against the cricket club. Whilst the cricket ground attempted to take several measures to abate the issue, cricket balls continued to be hit into the housing estate where the claimants lived. This meant that several cricket balls were hit onto their property, causing minor property damage and constituting a risk to the claimants. The claimants lived next to a cricket ground, and their garden was only 100 feet away from the nearest batting crease. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |