The Tort of Private Nuisance Essay

2612 Words11 Pages
'the tort of private nuisance is ineffective and has little relevance in the modern law of torts.' discuss the tort of private nuisance in light of the above statement. The tort of private nuisance may be defined as the unlawful and indirect interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land in which they have an interest. The tort has developed over a long period of time and exists in common law. Grade: A-C | £0.01. 表單的頂端 [pic] 表單的底部 The tort of private nuisance may be defined as the unlawful and indirect interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land in which they have an interest. The authorities have also held that the interference needs to be continuous. An action in private nuisance usually involves neighbours, and the courts have to balance the rights of the land owner and his needs and the rights of his neighbour to be able to use and enjoy his land. The interference is likely to be indirect, direct invasion would be covered by the tort of trespass. The tort has developed over a long period of time and exists in common law. The courts have established that certain key elements need to exist if the tort is to be established. The claimant must have an interest in the land affected by the nuisance. It was Lord Lloyd in Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) who reminded us that private nuisances may fall into different categories and amount to nuisance (1) by encroachment on a neighbour's land; (2) by direct physical injury to a neighbour's land; (3) by interference with a neighbour's quiet enjoyment of his land. In many ways it is often easier to explain what amounts to a private nuisance by giving an example of what has been held to amount to an indirect interference. In Sturges v Bridgman (1879) noise was held to be sufficient nuisance. The facts of the case were that a doctor moved next door to a confectioner. The confectioner

More about The Tort of Private Nuisance Essay

Open Document