Public and private nuisance

This Presentation details the specifics of public and private nuisance and give scenarios of each so that readers can fully understand the concepts applicable to business law.

1. Public and Private Nuisance Done By: Nicardo Shirley Ryon Whyte Taj- wayne Bailey Jakeniel Johnson

2. What is a Nuisance? A nuisance is a person or thing which causes inconvenience or annoyance.

3. What is a Private Nuisance A private nuisance is a civil wrong; it is the unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use of one’s property in a manner that substantially interferes with the enjoyment or use of another individual’s property without an actual trespass or physical invasion to the land.

4. What is Public nuisance? A public nuisance is a criminal wrong; it is an act or omission that obstructs, damage or causes inconvenience to the right of the community. It can also be defined as an act that interferes with the general community interest or the comfort of the public at large.

5. Examples of this: Air pollution Land noise Storing dangerous explosives Prostitutions houses Individuals cannot sue for public nuisance unless it also gives rise to a private nuisance.

6. St Helen’s Tracks Vs Mr. Thompson   This is a case which dealt with noise from a motorcycle speedway stadium and a motocross. Whilst the stadium and track are largely surrounded by agricultural land there is a single house located quite nearby. The house had been built in the 1950s prior to the stadium and track and has been occupied although not by the same people, throughout the period.

7. Decision The high court found in favour of the appellant, granted an injunction and awarded damages for the past nuisance. The court of appeal overturns the decision stating that the actual use of the stadium and race track should be taken into account when assessing the character of the locality and moto sport noise was now a characteristic of the neighborhood.

8. Cont.… Mr. Thomson had failed to establish that the use of the stadium and race track was a nuisance. They appealed to the supreme court. The supreme court unanimously upheld the appeal and order the injunction to restrain activities that emitted more than a specified level of noise.

9. Principles The judge addressed the following key points before deciding the case. The judge uses previous cases such as the case with Gillingham Borough council vs M edway doc co ltd (1993) which held that a planning authority can change the character of the area for the purpose of nuisance in the case of strategic or major development, is no longer to be followed.

10. Cont’d The judge also notes that the residential used pre-dated the activities creating the noise although the occupiers of the property in question has changed over time.

11. Rationale Due to the fact that the nuisance was depriving the occupier the right for enjoyment of the land. A planning authority cannot authorize a nuisance has that would deprive a property owner of the right to object to what would otherwise be a nuisance without providing compensation.

12. Outline of the case - Smith v. Smith (1875) In this private nuisance case the plaintiff and defendant owned and occupied adjoining properties, separated in the back by a nine-foot-high party wall. The windows of the plaintiff’s kitchen, scullery, and workshop faced the wall from a distance of eight feet. The defendant added on to his home, raising the wall from nine feet to 26 feet in doing so obscured the light and air flow that the plaintiff had enjoyed for 46 years.

13. Cont’d The addition darkened the plaintiff’s kitchen, scullery, and workshop, resulting in the need for the use of gaslight. It rendered the workshop useless for the plaintiff’s cabinet-making and upholstering – work which required good light. Furthermore, it affected his family’s health, forcing his wife and daughter to leave the home. The plaintiff filed suit, requesting damages and an injunction.

14. Principles of the case: Awarding damages in lieu of injunctions may amount to forcing people to sell their property rights. A land owner is entitled to use his/her property in such a way which maximizes his or her enjoyment. However the enjoyment must not unreasonably interfere or disturb the rights of the adjoining land owner/owners or create a private nuisance. Therefore a land owner can use his/her property in any way s/he sees fit so long as they do not disturb or injure an adjoining land owner.

15. Outcome of the case: Sir george Jessel issued a mandatory injunction for removal of the addition. He explained that the court must exercise its powers “in such a way as to prevent the defendant doing a wrongful act, and thinking that he could pay damages for it. One cannot force another to sell his property rights:

16. Cont’d In granting a mandatory injunction, the court did not mean that the man injured could not be compensated by damages, but that the case was one in which it was difficult to assess damages, and in which, if it were not granted, the defendant would be allowed practically to deprive the plaintiff of the enjoyment of his property if he would give him a price for it. When, therefore, money could not adequately reinstate the person injured, the court said, . . . “we will put you in the same position as before the injury was done.”

17. Rationale: Sir George suggested that a defendant’s intentions could affect the remedy chosen by the court. Ignorance of wrong could justify the substitution of damages for an injunction. However, ignorance could not justify the defendant’s behaviour in this case: it was inconceivable that the defendant did not know that he was blocking the plaintiff’s light.

18. Dennis v Ministry of Defense This case illustrates how the court deals with a noise nuisance: a serious disturbance that constitutes interference to the ordinary enjoyment of property. It highlights the legal remedies that you might expect to be available in a noise nuisance claim.

19. Outline D (the claimants) owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF wittering , an operational and training base for harrier jump jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average of 70 times a day.

20. Cont’d D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land and amounted to a violation of their fundamental human rights. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the ministry of defence , seeking a declaration and damages or in the alternative damages amounting to £10,000,000.

21. Decision The court refused to grant the declaration sought but awarded D damages of £950,000, representing loss of capital value, past and future loss of use and past and future loss of amenity. It held that the noise from the harrier jets amounted to a nuisance and constituted a serious interference with the claimants' enjoyment of their land

22. Cont’d He court refused to treat the harrier training as an ordinary use of land and held that although there was a public benefit to the continued training of harrier pilots, the claimants should not be required to bear the cost of the public benefit. Appropriate damages were awarded and deemed as just satisfaction under the section 8 of the human rights act 1998.

23. PRINCIPLES A previous case - moreno gómez , has important implications as to how section 8 of the HRA 1998 has to be applied in cases where the right to family and private life has been violated because of the failure of a local authority to take abatement and enforcement action against a statutory nuisance that is serious enough to amount to an interference with this human right.

24. Cont’d Section 8 of the human rights act states that the public interest is greater than the individual private interests – Mr. and Mrs. Dennis However , it is not proportionate to pursue or give effect to the public interest without compensation for Mr. and Mrs. Dennis.

25. Rationale Although the mod accepted that operations at the RAF wittering caused noise and disturbance to the Dennis’, they raised a defence that the harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF wittering was already established.