Chapter 12 Self-test questions

. Which of the aspects below are common to both public and private nuisance?

The ability to sue for personal injury.

Criminal liability as well as common law liability.

The interference which is actionable is indirect.

An isolated incident can give rise to a claim.

. Which of the statements below best illustrates the meaning of 'unlawful interference' in private nuisance?

That which is deemed 'not reasonable' according to the ordinary usage of mankind living in a particular society.

That which is prohibited according to statutory and common law.

That which the 'reasonable landowner' would deem to be unreasonable.

. In which of the cases below was the claimant held to be 'abnormally sensitive'?

Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris

McKinnon Industries v Walker

Nor-Video Services v Ontario Hydro

Robinson v Kilvert

. The nature of the locality is important only in cases when the damage is personal discomfort.

True

False

. What does Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC say about the issue of fault in this type of case?

Whether or not the defendant knew of the danger of a nuisance resulting in a landslip is irrelevant because liability in such cases is strict.

When the defendant had not caused the nuisance it would not be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty on him to remedy the nuisance, when the costs of detecting the nuisance would be unduly onerous.

A landowner should never be liable for damage caused through the operation of a force of nature.

. Which aspect of the European Convention on Human Rights was involved in Marcic v Thames Water Utilities?

Article 10.

Article 6.

Article 8.

Article 3.

. Hunter v Canary Wharf is one of the significant nuisance cases of the late 20^th century. Which of the following statements is not accurate regarding Hunter?

It confirmed that a continuing state of affairs is required for private nuisance liability.

It confirmed that interference with a television signal can be actionable in private nuisance.

It is necessary to have an interest in land in order to be able to sue in private nuisance.

. What is the basis for the distinction between the outcomes in Hussain v Lancaster CC and Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council?

The wrongdoers in Lippiatt were travellers but the wrongdoers in Hussain were council tenants.

Council landlords can never be liable for nuisance caused by their tenants.

The nuisance in Lippiatt involved the use of the Council's land but did not in Hussain.

The nuisance in question did not involve the use of the landlord's land in Lippiatt but it did in Hussain.

. Which of the following in not a defence to an action in private nuisance?

That the claimant came to the nuisance.

20 years' prescription.

Statutory authority.

. In Kennaway v Thompson an injunction was denied in respect of private nuisance caused by speed-boat racing.

True

False

. Which of the following cases does not provide an example of the tort of public nuisance?

Tate and Lyle v GLC

Laws v Florinplace

Miller v Jackson

Attorney-General v PYA Quarries

. Luke is house-sitting for two weeks for his brother John, who is on holiday. As soon as John leaves, his neighbour Sue calls in a builder to begin converting her garage into a conservatory. What advice would you give Luke regarding a possible private nuisance action for the disturbance caused by the building work?

Building work can never be actionable because the law recognises the social utility of having new and improved properties built.

He cannot sue in private nuisance because he has no interest in the land affected.

He should immediately begin an action in private nuisance against Sue but in the meantime, abatement would be an appropriate remedy.

Building work can never be actionable due to the fact that the defendant will have planning permission.

Quiz Content