Social utility/benefit wont justify what otherwise would be a – nuisance if it is affecting someones utility of the land (Munroe v Southern Dairies, Hunter v Canary Wharf) P’s abnormal sensitivity of P or P’s property does not matter – (Robinson Cannot be relied on by P for cause of but can still v Kilvert). be argued. man who carries on an exceptionally delicate trade cannot ‘A complain against someone who is doing some lawful on their (Robinson property’ - v Kilvert) Proprietary Rights Interests in Free Access to Property P has right to have free access to their – property picketing protestors amounted to a Animal Liberation v Gasser – nuisance as Circus could not run. NOT covered by Nuisance Freedom from VIEW A cannot bring an action against B if B has caused interference to the use and enjoyment of A’s land by way of merely looking at it (Victoria Park Racing v Taylor) Interference from PHYSICAL PRESENCE of a building nearby i.e. Such that P’s view spoiled, increased light through windows, view blocked, extra wind comes across property or television reception is affected. No Action In nuisance against those responsible for the building – (Hunter but may have cause action if something v Canary Wharf) other tahn the actual building causes interference (i.e. generator inside Nor-Video Services v Ontario Hydro) – 5 What defences are available? Going to the Nuisance? It is NOT a defense that P effectively exposed themselves to nuisance by moving nearby to where D was already doing an act (Miller v Jackson) Statutory Authorisation (SA) SA will be a valid defence when: Leglisation imposed on D the doing of a particular act (Lester-Travers v City of Frankston) i.e. council workers repairing road with SA and must specifically authorise
Social utility/benefit – wont justify what otherwise would be a nuisance if it is affecting someones utility of the land (Munroe v Southern Dairies, Hunter v Canary Wharf) P’s abnormal sensitivity – of P or P’s property does not matter (Robinson v Kilvert). Cannot be relied on by P for cause of but can still be argued. ‘A man who carries on an exceptionally delicate trade cannot complain against someone who is doing some lawful on their property’ - (Robinson v Kilvert) Proprietary Rights Interests in Free Access to Property – P has right to have free access to their property Animal Liberation v Gasser – picketing protestors amounted to a nuisance as Circus could not run. NOT covered by Nuisance Freedom from VIEW A cannot bring an action against B if B has caused interference to the use and enjoyment of A’s land by way of merely looking at it (Victoria Park Racing v Taylor) Interference from PHYSICAL PRESENCE of a building nearby i.e. Such that P’s view spoiled, increased light through windows, view blocked, extra wind comes across property or television reception is affected. No Action – In nuisance against those responsible for the building (Hunter v Canary Wharf) but may have cause action if something other tahn the actual building causes interference (i.e. generator inside – Nor-Video Services v Ontario Hydro) 5 What defences are available? Going to the Nuisance? It is NOT a defense that P effectively exposed themselves to nuisance by moving nearby to where D was already doing an act (Miller v Jackson) Statutory Authorisation (SA) SA will be a valid defence when: Leglisation imposed on D the doing of a particular act (Lester-Travers v City of Frankston) i.e. council workers repairing road with SA and must specifically authorise
Torts.docx