Self-test questions: Trespass to Land and Nuisance

* not completed

. Which of the following scenarios is not a trespass to land?

Throwing a ball in to your neighbour's garden. correct incorrect

Walking across your neighbour's garden without permission. correct incorrect

Refusing to leave your neighbour's garden when asked to do so by your neighbour. correct incorrect

Allowing an apple tree to grow over your neighbour's fence into their garden. correct incorrect

Cutting the branches of your neighbour's tree and putting them over the fence into their garden. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Tommy and his friends are stood near the gate to a farmer's field. Tommy picks up his friend Robin and drops him over the gate; he lands on the ground in the farmer's field. Has Robin trespassed into the farmer's field?

This is not a trespass to land as Robin lacked the intention to trespass as his action was involuntary. correct incorrect

This is not a trespass to land as there is no damage caused by Robin. correct incorrect

This is a trespass to land as Robin has directly interfered with the farmer's possession of his land. correct incorrect

This is a trespass to land as Robin has directly and unjustifiably interfered with the farmer's possession of his land. correct incorrect

This is a trespass to land as Robin has directly crossed the boundary and his intention is irrelevant. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Palash owns land under which there is oil. Isaac owns neighbouring land and decides to drill for oil, drilling a well diagonally from his land to under Palash's land. The well entered Palash's land at a depth of 1000 feet. No harm was caused to Palash's land on the surface, nor was his use or enjoyment of the land interfered with. Palash brings an action in trespass against Isaac, will he be successful?

No, the incursion underneath Palash's land is too far below to be an actionable trespass. correct incorrect

No, the lack of damage to the land, or impact upon his use or enjoyment of the land means that Palash cannot bring an action in trespass. correct incorrect

No, whilst trespass to airspace above land is actionable, trespass below the ground is not. correct incorrect

Yes, if Isaac interfered with Palash's land in any way, voluntarily or involuntarily, then it will be actionable in trespass. correct incorrect

Yes, this is clear actionable trespass to Palash's land, and the lack of damage to the surface is irrelevant. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Mia notices a fire has started in the garden of her neighbour Felix's property. She breaks through the fence and runs over to the source of the fire with her garden hose spraying water everywhere. Mia manages to put out the fire, but in the process has trampled Felix's strawberry plants and broken some plant pots. Can Felix bring a successful claim for trespass to land?

No, the property damage is minimal and therefore Felix cannot bring a successful trespass to land claim. correct incorrect

No, whilst Mia has directly interfered with Felix's land, she has a good defence of necessity. correct incorrect

Yes, Mia has directly interfered with Felix's possession of land by breaking through the fence and crossing the boundary into his property. correct incorrect

Yes, Mia has directly and unjustifiably interfered with Felix's possession of land, and causing damage precludes the use of the defence of necessity. correct incorrect

Yes, Mia has directly and unjustifiably interfered with Felix's possession of land, and whilst some damage putting out the fire would make it justifiable, breaking the fence was excessive and prevents her from using the defence of necessity. correct incorrect

* not completed

. What is the difference between trespass to land and nuisance?

Trespass is a direct interference with land, actionable per se, whereas nuisance is indirect interference with the use and enjoyment of land, actionable upon proof of damage. correct incorrect

Trespass is a direct interference with land, whereas nuisance is indirect interference with the use and enjoyment of land, both require proof of damage. correct incorrect

Trespass is a direct interference with land, whereas nuisance is indirect interference with the use and enjoyment of land, both are actionable per se (without proof of damage). correct incorrect

Trespass is a direct interference with land, actionable upon proof of damage, whereas nuisance is indirect interference with the use and enjoyment of land, actionable per se. correct incorrect

Trespass is an indirect interference with land, actionable per se, whereas nuisance is direct interference with the use and enjoyment of land, actionable upon proof of damage. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Ross undertakes noisy drilling on his property which causes vibrations and is incredibly loud, reverberating around the local area. Which of the following Claimants will not have legal standing to bring an action in nuisance?

Rachel who owns the property next door. correct incorrect

Monica who is a tenant in a neighbouring property. correct incorrect

Monica's lodger Chandler who lives in her house. correct incorrect

Janice who owns a flat 2 streets away but is kept awake by the noise. correct incorrect

Joey who owns Monica's house, but does not live there. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Raymond owns a house which is covered in climbing plants. Ivy grows across the boundary from Raymond's roof on to Amy's property next door, it grows over Amy's roof and blocks the guttering causing water to overflow and cause damage to the upstairs rooms of her house. Raymond also has a compost heap, which he adds smelly pig manure to, the smell wafts across the garden to Amy's property. Can Amy bring a successful claim against Raymond and on what basis?

No, Amy cannot bring a successful nuisance claim here as Raymond has taken reasonable care and it is not a substantial interference with Amy's reasonable enjoyment of her property. correct incorrect

Amy can bring a claim in relation to the physical water damage nuisance, but the smells are not sufficiently interfering with her enjoyment of the property. correct incorrect

Amy can bring a claim in relation to the smells as they interfere with her enjoyment of the property but cannot bring a claim in relation to the water damage as she should have taken reasonable care to remedy the problem. correct incorrect

Amy can bring a claim in relation to the physical water damage nuisance and the smells interfering with her enjoyment of her property. correct incorrect

Amy can bring a claim in relation to the physical water damage nuisance and the smells interfering with her enjoyment of her property, but they will be subject to a defence of contributory negligence. correct incorrect

* not completed

. An activity will not be considered to be a nuisance if it amounts to a reasonable use of the Defendant's land (this is the concept of "reasonable user"). Which factors will be considered by the Courts in assessing unreasonable user in amenity nuisance cases?

The Court will always consider the intensity, duration, frequency, timing of the interference and the nature of the locality, it will sometimes consider the sensitivity of the Claimant and the bad intention of the Defendant. correct incorrect

The Court will always consider the intensity and duration of the interference, it will sometimes consider the nature of the locality, sensitivity of the Claimant and the bad intention of the Defendant. correct incorrect

The Court will always consider the intensity, duration, frequency, timing of the interference, it will sometimes consider the nature of the locality and the sensitivity of the Claimant and the bad intention of the Defendant. correct incorrect

The Court will always consider the sensitivity of the Claimant and the bad intention of the Defendant and sometimes consider the intensity, duration, frequency, timing of the interference and the nature of the locality. correct incorrect

The Court will always consider the sensitivity of the Claimant and the bad intention of the Defendant and the nature of the locality and sometimes consider the intensity, duration, frequency, timing of the interference. correct incorrect

* not completed

. What is the usual test for when an annoying noise amounts to a nuisance?

Any noise interference could be a nuisance. correct incorrect

When the irritating noise causes inconvenience beyond a minimal level. correct incorrect

When the irritating noise causes inconvenience to the neighbouring property, regardless of whether it would be an inconvenience to the reasonable person in their position. correct incorrect

When the irritating noise causes inconvenience beyond what other occupiers in the neighbourhood can be expected to bear. correct incorrect

When the irritating noise causes inconvenience which a reasonable person would consider irritating. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Rosa creates delicate embroideries on reclaimed ancient linen handkerchiefs from a warehouse. The handkerchiefs need to be kept at a constant temperature and away from strong smells, to avoid damage. Jake works in the warehouse above Rosa's and fires pottery in a kiln. This caused his warehouse to be significantly hotter than normal, and whilst this would not have been a problem to other users of the warehouses, caused damage to Rosa's fine linen handkerchiefs. Can Rosa successfully bring a claim in nuisance?

Yes, because there is material damage caused to property. correct incorrect

Yes, because the heat is an interference with Rosa's property. correct incorrect

No, because Rosa has chosen to undertake a very sensitive activity, and must therefore bear the risk that people may interfere with it. correct incorrect

No, because Jake's use is reasonable which provides him with a defence. correct incorrect

No, because other ordinary neighbours would not have been affected, and her work was particularly sensitive. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Charles has a business which involves using machinery in his premises and has operated there for 20 years. Marco is a Pilates instructor who owns the property next door. He decides to build a Pilates studio on his property next door to Charles' building. Marco finds that the noise and vibrations coming from Charles' machinery interrupts the Pilates classes and wishes to sue Charles in nuisance. Can Marco successfully bring a claim for an injunction against Charles in nuisance?

Yes, Marco could be granted an injunction as "coming to the nuisance" is no defence on these facts. correct incorrect

Yes, Marco could be granted an injunction as the defence of volenti non fit injuria would not apply here as he did not consent. correct incorrect

No, Marco could not be granted an injunction as the defence of volenti non fit injuria would apply here. correct incorrect

No, Marco could not be granted an injunction as the defence of prescription would apply here. correct incorrect

No, Marco could not be granted an injunction, as "coming to the nuisance" is a good defence. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Priya breeds alpacas on her land. She does not get on with her neighbour Walter. Walter deliberately sets off fireworks at the boundary of their properties knowing that it will distress the alpacas and interfere with their breeding. The Court decides that Priya's alpaca breeding could be said to be abnormally sensitive, but will this stop Priya from bringing a successful claim in nuisance for an injunction to stop Walter from setting off fireworks?

Yes, Priya could be granted an injunction given that the fireworks are causing a noise and visual interference, there is no defence that her use of land makes her an abnormally sensitive claimant. correct incorrect

Yes, Priya could be granted an injunction, given that Walter is making the noise maliciously. correct incorrect

No, Walter's use of fireworks is a reasonable use of his land. correct incorrect

No, Walter's use of fireworks is a reasonable use of his land and Priya is abnormally sensitive. correct incorrect

No, Walter's use of fireworks is a natural consequence of his use of land and Priya is abnormally sensitive. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Jay lives near an industrial estate which has 5 lorries visiting each day. The owner of the estate gets planning permission to expand and it ends up with 20 lorries visiting day and night. Jay complains that the noise of the lorries and their headlights is keeping him awake. What is the correct statement of the law in relation to private nuisance?

Jay should be able to claim as the locality has significantly altered. correct incorrect

Jay should be able to claim as planning permission is ignored when considering the locality. correct incorrect

Jay is unlikely to be able to claim as he is an abnormally sensitive claimant. correct incorrect

Jay is unlikely to be able to claim if the locality was already industrial, and there is simply more industry there, the planning permission is a relevant factor. correct incorrect

Jay is unlikely to be able to claim as the lorries are reasonably using the industrial estate. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following examples would be a private rather than public nuisance?

Contaminated water supply correct incorrect

Dangerous or noxious contaminants dispersed from land reclamation sites. correct incorrect

Highway obstruction correct incorrect

A badly organised festival causing noise nuisance and traffic problems correct incorrect

Noise nuisance affecting the immediate neighbours. correct incorrect

* not completed

. In relation to public nuisance, which of the following statements is not true?

The nuisance must affect a sufficient class or number of people. correct incorrect

For an individual to claim they must show that they have suffered special damage. correct incorrect

Claimants must have an interest in the land. correct incorrect

Public nuisance may apply to isolated cases (ie. Those that are not a continuing nuisance) e. Public nuisance gives rise to criminal liability, actionable by the local authority or the Attorney General. correct incorrect