In respect of Andy: Does Andy have a prior interest in the land affected such as illustrated in ____? It would appear he does as he is a tenant . This right to claim under private nuisance allows that the claimant must have a legal interest but not necessarily ownership. In ____ where a person was injured when a toilet cistern fell on her in the lavatory, the claim failed as the claimant did not have a proprietary interest in the land. Is there physical damage or loss of amenity? On answering this question it would appear that, there is no physical damage, but there is an interference with ____ of the land and this will involve establishing unreasonable or unlawful use of land. The case of ____ is particularly applicable to Andy's situation as the noise is happening at night as happened in the Halsey case where the court ruled for the claimant: The noise was an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort of human existence according to the standards of ordinary and reasonable persons in Fulham. This highlights also how the court will consider the neighbourhood or locality as in the speech in Sturges v Bridgman. Lord Justice, Thesiger stated “what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey“ this shows that a higher level of disturbance is considered reasonable in an industrial area where, as it would be regarded as as unreasonable in a residential area.Andy is in a residential area and the noise emitted by is surely unacceptable following ____. The ____ is indirect and continuous, despite only starting recently. In the case of Crown River cruises Ltd V Kimbolton fireworks Ltd, it was a one off occasion but the court accepted this as nuisance. In ____ night work was only temporary, but the court still found in favour of the claimant. This indicates that super screens practice is unreasonable and a potential nuisance and Andy has a potential claim. Andy will need to check that Super screens do not have ____ or statutory authority which would be a defence for them to a claim of ____ Based on all this information appears Andy may well have an action for a nuisance claim against super screens. In respect of Becky. As Becky is only ____, it would not appear she has a proprietary interest in the property as in ____. More recently, the courts have considered a wider interpretation in respect of who is able to establish a right in nuisance. This is under ____ (ECHR). Article 8 states that everyone has the right to respect for his or her ____, his or her home and correspondence. In McKenna v British Aluminium (2002) over 30 claimants including some ____ who had no interest in the land affected, were able to claim ____ , for the noise and fumes that came from the defendant's factory. This does not prevent Andy from bringing a claim if his signal is similarly affected, but he would again need to check they do not have planning permission or statutory authority. Although in Hunter v Canary Wharf case the court found against the claimants it may be that the court would ____, particularly as mobile phones are so widely used now and impact peoples lives so much. However Becky is ____ to have an actionable claim in nuisance unless she can claim rights under ECHR.

Andy and Becky Question AO2 and AO3 Content

Print
Embed

Leaderboard

Visual style

Options

Switch template

Continue editing: ?