Continuing Private Nuisance and Defences

This page explores the concept of continuing private nuisance and introduces various defences available in private nuisance law UK. This information is particularly relevant for those studying private nuisance a Level law or preparing for potential legal actions.

Continuing Private Nuisance

A private nuisance can be ongoing, leading to continuous or recurring damage. In such cases:

• Each occurrence gives rise to a fresh cause of action
• The limitation period runs from each new occurrence
• Damages can only be claimed for the last six years

Example: In Darley Main Colliery Co v Mitchell (1886), subsidence damage occurred over several years due to mining activities. The House of Lords held that each subsidence was a fresh nuisance, allowing the claimant to claim for damage within the limitation period.

Defences to Private Nuisance

Several defences are available in private nuisance cases:

1. Prescription: The defendant can claim a right to commit the nuisance if it has been ongoing for 20 years without secrecy, force, or permission.

2. Statutory Authority: If an act is authorized by statute, it cannot be a nuisance unless negligently done.

   Example: In Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd (1981), the construction of an oil refinery was protected by statutory authority, despite causing nuisance to nearby residents.

3. Coming to the Nuisance: This is not a complete defence but may be considered alongside other factors.

   Example: In Miller v Jackson (1977), the court considered that the claimants had moved next to an existing cricket ground when assessing the nuisance claim.

4. Consent: If the claimant has consented to the nuisance, they cannot later complain about it.

5. Act of a Stranger: The defendant may not be liable if the nuisance was caused by a third party over whom they had no control.

Understanding these defences is crucial for anyone involved in private nuisance case examples UK or studying elements of private nuisance in tort law.

Public Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher

This final page covers two related areas of law: public nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. These concepts are often studied alongside private nuisance in nuisance tort law notes PDF and are important for understanding the broader context of nuisance law.

Public Nuisance

Public nuisance is a criminal offence that also gives rise to a civil action. It involves an act or omission that endangers the life, health, property, morals, or comfort of the public.

Definition: Public nuisance is an unlawful act or omission which endangers or interferes with the lives, comfort, property or common rights of the public.

Key features of public nuisance:

• Must affect a significant section of the public
• Can be brought by the Attorney General or an individual who has suffered special damage

Example: R v Rimmington (2005) established that public nuisance requires the endangerment of the public or a significant section of it, not just a collection of individuals.

Rylands v Fletcher

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is often considered alongside nuisance law. It establishes strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things brought onto land.

Quote: "The person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril." - Blackburn J in Rylands v Fletcher (1866)

Key elements of Rylands v Fletcher:

1. Non-natural use of land
2. Accumulation of something dangerous
3. Escape of the dangerous thing
4. Damage as a result of the escape

Example: In Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994), the House of Lords held that foreseeability of damage is required for liability under Rylands v Fletcher.

Understanding these related concepts provides a comprehensive view of nuisance law and its applications in various scenarios. This knowledge is crucial for anyone studying nuisance tort law notes PDF or preparing for examinations in tort law.