Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > Torts Connected to Land: Public Nuisance > Flashcards

Torts Connected to Land: Public Nuisance Flashcards

1
Q

Define a public nuisance

A
  • a nuisance “which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What happened in Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1958)?

A
  • Defendants used blasting system inn a quarry which caused noise and vibrations and threw out debris which affected people living nearby
  • Injunction granted as the result of a relator action to prevent the defendant from emitting the debris
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

In Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1958), what was a public nuisance held to include? Who were held to must have been affected in order for it to be a public nuisance? Did the courts comment on what constitutes a class?

A
  • Includes a whole range of activities which endanger the public, cause them inconvenience or discomfort, or prevent them exercising their rights
  • HELD - a substantial class of people must have been affected
  • Courts said a class would be more than two or three, but any more would be a question of fact in each case
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is a relator action? Who brings them? Are they common?

A
  • When an injunction is sought to stop a person committing a public nuisance
  • Brought in the name of the Attorney General
  • Very rare today
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What happened in Benjamin v Storr (1974)? What was held?

A
  • Man who owed coffee shop in Covent Garden had trade interrupted by tradesmen blocking access and restricting light with horses and carts
  • Claimant said he was affected more than other people because it affected his trade
  • HELD - that the claimant must have suffered damage over and above the other members of the class
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What five activities have been held to be a public nuisance?

A
  • Picketing on a road, preventing access
  • Blocking a canal
  • Obstructing a highway by queueing on it
  • Making obscene phone calls to multiple people
  • A badly organised pop festival
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

In what case was picketing on a road, preventing access, held to be a public nuisance?

A
  • Thomas v NUM (1985)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

In what case was blocking a canal held to be a public nuisance?

A
  • Rose v Miles (1815)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

In what case was obstructing a highway by queueing on it held to be a public nuisance?

A
  • Lyons v Gulliver (1914)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

In what case was making obscene phone calls to multiple people held to be a public nuisance?

A
  • R v Johnson (1996)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

In what case was a badly organised pop festival held to be a public nuisance?

A
  • Attorney General for Ontario v Orange Productions (1971)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What did the House of Lords try to clarify in R v Rimmington (2005)? What did it say? What was decided?

A
  • Tried to clarify when a group of individuals targeted by offensive behaviour could amount to being a class of people for the purposes of the tort
  • Said that randomly selected members of ethnic minorities did not on the facts amount to a class of the public
  • Decided that sending 538 pieces of offensive material did not affect enough of the public
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What happened in Tate and Lyle Food Distribution Ltd v The Greater London Council (1983)?

A
  • Defendants were building a ferry terminal in the same part of the river Thames that the claimants had a jetty for the use of their business
  • Part they were using became all silted up because of the works, requiring dredging to free it up. Also led to traffic being confined to a narrow channel of the river, causing congestion
  • Claim in private nuisance and negligence failed because they did not possess private rights
  • Claim succeeded in public nuisance since the interference caused affected public navigation rights
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

A public nuisance differs with private nuisance on what basis?

A
  • Who is affected by the nuisance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are the five rules laid out in Rylands v Fletcher (1863)?

A
  • the defendant must control the land from which the problem has come
  • defendant must have brought or accumulated something in the course of some “unnatural use” of the land
  • the thing brought or accumulated must be likely to cause damage if it escapes
  • There must be an escape of the dangerous thing
  • There must be damage as a result of the escape
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Is a public nuisance a crime?

A
  • Yes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Under the Magistrates Court Act 1980, public nuisance is an offence that it triable either way. What does this mean?

A
  • It can be tried in either a magistrates’ court or in the crown court
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the fault element in public nuisance? What is there no requirement for?

A
  • Fault element one of foreseeability of the risk of the type of nuisance
  • No requirement of intention or recklessness
19
Q

When is a defendant found liable of public nuisance?

A
  • When they knew or ought to have known of the risk of the type or kind of nuisance that occurred
20
Q

What is the term ‘fault element’ sometimes referred to as in criminal law?

A
  • Mens Rea
21
Q

When discussing foreseeability, what principle is important to mention?

A
  • The principle of remoteness
22
Q

What happened in R v Goldstein (2006)? What was held?

A
  • Defendant had enclosed some salt in an envelope with a cheque as a joke
  • Salt leaked out of the envelope in the post office, creating an anthrax scare and subsequent evacuation
  • HoL held that there was no public nuisance as the defendant didn’t know, or reasonably should have known that the salt would escape and cause a nuisance
23
Q

Give a case that concerned local communities in terms of public nuisance

A
  • R v Ruffell (1991)
24
Q

Give a case that concerned a group with a common interest in terms of public nuisance

A
  • R v Ong (2001)
25
Q

Give a case that concerned an impact on the community in terms of public nuisance

A
  • R v Lowrie (2004)
26
Q

Give a case that concerned sending abusive letters in terms of public nuisance

A
  • R v Rimmington (2006)
27
Q

Give a case that concerned making obscene telephone calls in terms of public nuisance

A
  • R v Johnson (1997)
28
Q

What happened in R v Ruffell (1991)? Who were the class of people?

A
  • Defendant pleaded guilty to causing a publice nuisance
  • He had thrown an acid party that caused a side road to be blocked by traffic, there had been loud music and the nearby woodlands had been littered with human excrement
  • Class of people affected were the local residents
  • Defendant appealed unsuccessfully against his sentence
29
Q

What happened in R v Ong (2001)? Who were the class of people?

A
  • Defendant and others were planning to interfere with floodlights at a football match. Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit a public nuisance
  • Class of people was the football spectators
  • Defendants unsuccessfully appealed against sentence
30
Q

What happened in R v Lowrie (2004)? Who were the class of people?

A
  • Defendant who made multiple 999 hoax calls pleaded guilty to causing a public nuisance
  • Class of people were those who were in genuine need of help by the emergency services but could not get help as help had been diverted by the hoax calls
31
Q

What did the House of Lords state in R v Rimmington (2006)? Why did they say this?

A
  • Common law offences such as public nuisance should not be used for conduct covered by a statutory offence unless there is a good reason
  • Rimmington could have been prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988
32
Q

What was held in R v Johnson (1997)? However? How has the law developed since?

A
  • CoA held that making obscene telephone calls to a number of women in an area was a public nuisance
  • However, the HoL indicated in R v Rimmington (2006) that such behaviour is unlikely to amount to a public nuisance as they were separate calls to separate peopke
  • Making obscene telephone calls can now be prosecuted under statutory provisions such as the Communications Act 2003
33
Q

What three things did the Law Commission indicate in 2015 in terms of public nuisance?

A
  • Prosecutions for public nuisance were still occurring despite the presence of relevant statutory provisions
  • Some nuisance telephone call cases were still being prosecuted as public nuisance
  • Limitations on prosecution imposed in R v Rimmington (2006) were not being reflected in practice
34
Q

What did the Law Commission say about criminal and civil proceedings for the tort of public nuisance?

A
  • For compensation, tort is the correct choice, but it would make more sense for a criminal prosecution to occur first. Then if someone wants to claim for damages, the criminal conviction is usually strong evidence of civil liability
35
Q

In what three ways can civil actions be brought against those committing a public nuisance? (3)

A
  • By a relator action
  • By a local authority under the Local Government Act 1972
  • An action for tort by a private citizen who can show that they have suffered special damage beyond that experienced by others
36
Q

What are the three reasons why relator actions are very rare?

A
  • There are statutory bodies such as local authorities who will usually bring the actions
  • The Attorney General is unlikely to agree to a relator action unless there is special damage and if there is special damage, private citizens can bring actions in their own name
  • Most nuisance which affects the citizen can be prosecuted under statutory provisions rather than public nuisance
37
Q

What is the main specific defence to public nuisance?

A
  • Statutory authority
38
Q

What cannot be used as a defence to a charge of public nuisance?

A
  • Prescription
39
Q

What are the main civil remedies for public nuisance? (2)

A
  • Damages

- Injunctions

40
Q

In terms of public nuisance, how do you define interference? Referencing what case? What must it involve? What must it not be?

A
  • It must be indirect
  • Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1958)
  • Must involve interference, physically, with a class of people’s enjoyment of their property
  • Must not be a mere interference with a ‘thing of delight’ such as a view
41
Q

In public nuisance, the defendant will be responsible if they fail to do what?

A
  • Take reasonable precautions
42
Q

All requirements considered in a public nuisance case are subject to reasonableness. What does this mean?

A
  • The abnormal sensitivity of the claimant and the locality must be taken into account
43
Q

In public nuisance, who do you sue? (3)

A
  • The person creating the nuisance
  • The occupier of the land where the nuisance originated
  • The owner of the land if they knew about what was going on and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it
44
Q

What is the defence of prescription?

A
  • Where an activity has been going on for years, apparently without complaint from anyone else

Law (45 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions