Law Essay Example on Nuisance

Nuisance is an area of the law where claims are laid about someone does something the adversely affect the property of others. Anything that annoys is a nuisance. It involves environment issues such noise and smell. If the nuisance is causing problems to a class of people, it is considered as a public nuisance whereas private nuisance interferes with the rights of individuals in the society. In a statutory nuisance, local authority officers who are satisfied that there is a nuisance serves the perpetrator with an abatement notice which compels them to stop the nuisance. If the perpetrator does not to comply with the notice, it becomes a criminal offense. It each of this torts, claimants are required to prove that the defendants actions are causing unreasonable interference. The courts also take into consideration the intentions of the defendant. The crime of public nuisance allows the claimant to claim for personal injuries suffered but private nuisance does not.

The tort of private nuisance is an indirect, unlawful and continuous interference with an individuals enjoyment or use of the land they are interested in. The court has to balance the rights of the landowners and their needs and the rights of their neighbors to be able to use and enjoy their land because actions in private nuisance involve typically neighbors. It is a civil wrong that causes legal claims against the people committing the nuisance. Categories of private nuisance include; direct physical injury to the neighbors land, the interference with the neighbors quiet enjoyment of his land, and the encroachment on the neighbors land (Doskow, 2017). Private nuisance brings about a feeling of discomfort in which one is unable to live comfortably and peacefully on ones land arising from the defendants activity.

There are scenarios where the tort of private nuisance has been applicable. For instance, noise has been held to amount to an indirect interference. In a landmark case of Sturges v Bridgman (1879), indicates what constitutes the use of ones property will depend on the morals of the locals (Beever, 2014). It had no defense since the plaintiff come to the nuisance. In the case, a doctor moved next to a confectioner. For many years the confectioner had been producing sweets for sale in his kitchen. The doctor constructed a shed for a private purpose. Nevertheless, the loud noise produced by the confectioners industrial equipment disrupted his use and enjoyment of his land. The doctor sought an injunction. In his judgment, the judge noted that since the confectioners equipment have been producing noise for over twenty years without harming anyone, there was no defense.

In the case of St Helens Smelting V Tipping (1865), the claimant owned a house located next to the copper smelting business of the defendant. The plaintiff brought a complaint in respect of the damages caused by the smelting works their crops. Within the locality, there were several industrial businesses such as the alkali works, and the defendant argued that the property use was reasonable since the locality and the smelting works were in existence even before the claimant purchased the land. It was decided that where there is actual damage to the properties, the locality principle has no relevance. There was no defense that the claimant came to the nuisance. (Daunton, 2008)In the case of Christie v Davey (1893), the claimant, a music teacher, and she gave private lessons at her home. She lived in a semi-detached house adjacent to the defendants property. On many occasions, the defendant had complained of the noise to no avail. Irritated with the sounds, he bagged on the walls, shouted and beat trays in retaliation. Malice motivated his action and hence constituted to a nuisance. An injunction was granted restraining his behaviors. (Harpwood, 1893)When it comes to the remedy of the private nuisance, the question of whom to be sued is an important one. It includes any person who creates the nuisance irrespective if they were the person who occupied the land at the time of the action. It extends to occupiers who adopt and continue with the private nuisance on their land. In some circumstances, the landlords are also liable to a nuisance for instance, if landlords were aware of the nuisance carried on to let the property. If the nuisance continuous, the award needs to bring to an end of the nuisance. However, there is no certainty that the injunction will be granted. Certain conditions must be satisfactory to the courts indicating that the damages will not be enough.

Private nuisance law protects the interests of the individuals just like the tort of trespass safeguard people against direct invasion. It deals with disputes between two adjacent landowners. The tort of private nuisance establishes a balance between the rights of one individual to use their land in whichever manner they may wish without interfering with their neighbors. It is against the law to interfere with an individuals use of the land. It provides damage and remedy to the person who has suffered the injury from the nuisance. The tort of private nuisance has elements which if proven, the person who suffered the damage may sue the party that made the nuisance.

The Crime of Public Nuisance is the unlawful act or omission which endangers or interferes with the properties, universal rights, comfort, or lives of the general public. It is conducted in which the local community suffers damages, loss, or injury as a result. In most cases, public nuisance court proceeding is instigated by the local authority through the magistrates court. The courts must determine that a substantial class of people in the community have been affected by an action before it is commenced.

In Attorney General V PYA Quarries (1957), the defendant operated a quarry. Blasting technique was used, and it emitted a large quantity of dust and noise. It also caused vibrations interfering with the enjoyment of land for most people in the community. The claimant requested for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the public nuisance from the quarry. The defendant alleged was that, since it affected only those living in that region, then it was a private nuisance and hence, they were not bound by the injunction which prohibits public nuisance. It was held that public nuisance affects a class of people within the community while a private nuisance affects a particular individual. It was the communitys responsibility as a whole to take proceedings to stop the nuisance as it was the case and the injunction was granted. (Feldman, 2009)Public nuisance is both a tort and a crime. It is primarily a crime because it is prosecuted by the Attorney General reflecting the involvement of the section or the general public as a whole. Obstructions on the highway or unreasonable and unauthorized use of the highway is an example of public nuisance. A public nuisance as a tort, the claimant, demonstrates how they have suffered losses or damages beyond how the other members of the society have suffered.

In R. v Ong [2000], the defendant had a plan of switching off the floodlights during the premier league football game between Charlton and Liverpool. It was part of the betting scam involving the placing of bets on the fact that lights would go off. It was held that the defendant had a conspiracy of causing a public nuisance. Plunging the game into darkness, could have caused difficulties and prevented other spectators from witnessing the game they had paid to see. (Mulheron, 2016)In R v Madden (1975), the defendant telephoned a bomb hoax to steelworks. It led to the disruption of the steel works business for an hour. James LJ. Acknowledged that hoaxing the telephone call falsely with allegations that there are explosives amounts to public nuisance offense but noted that the few employees present at the site during the disruption were not a sufficiently broad class of the public. (Smith, 1998)In R v Ruffell (1991) and R v Shorrock (1994), the cases were presented as a comparison. They involved the prosecution of the organizers of acid house parties which were held at night in the fields next to the residential. The liability was confirmed since they were aware that there was a risk of creating the sort of nuisance that occurred. During the party, there were traffic disruption and the noise of music, with the expectation of cleanup on the next day. (Richardson, 2000)A statutory nuisance is an unlawful interference with the use or enjoyment of a persons land. Unlike private nuisance whose civil proceedings are taken to the high court, the statutory civil actions brought to the Magistrates court. The statutory nuisance is laid out in the Environment Protection Act. Statutory nuisance is based on the same principle as the private nuisance only that it was designed to enable people to get quick relief by using the local courts. Two routes were provided by EPA 1990 in which, enabling the local authority to act by following complains or through their observations and allowing the people to act directly without the involvement of the local authority.

It has been established that the local authority does not often act because their action is massively delayed by the opponents engaging in protraction appeal procedures. The clients are recommended to apply section 83 EPA 1990 and take action themselves. Serving notice on the perpetrator of the alleged nuisance with the requirement that it should be abated within 21 days is an essential step. If the perpetrator proceeds with the nuisance, a complaint is laid to the local magistrates court that issues a summon. It is the powers of the magistrates to the nuisance be abated and pay the compensations. It the nuisance continuous, it becomes a criminal offense.

Unlike in civil litigations, a statutory nuisance has an advantage that the loser does not have a risk of paying the other sides cost. The exception to the rule is that if one contacts themselves improperly. A responsible and honest complainant has nothing to fear. If one wins, their cost is paid. The disadvantage of the statutory law is that the opponents may have what amounts as best practical means defense which limits the complainants scope for effective remedies. It is worth to consider laying a statutory nuisance claim as the first port of call considering the cost issues.

If one wins in the statutory nuisance, they are in a position to sue in the civil courts for compensation. Most people are unaware of the statutory nuisance procedures, and they end up relying on the local authorities which is a common problem. Statutory cases include breaking and crushing of concrete in building sites adjacent to residential, builders merchants distributing depots. A published statutory nuisance is on the noise from the Alton Towers Park. The nuisance law indicates that environmental nuisance perpetrators appear to have an idea that they owe responsibilities to those affected by their activities.

Nuisance involves private and public nuisance. Public nuisance is acted without specific legal authority for them resulting in an unreasonable reduction in amenities or environmental qualities which interferes several people at once. Private nuisance consists of damages that arise from a substantial and unreasonable interference individuals use of land. Local authority inspects their area frequently to detect statutory nuisances, a duty they have under the act. They investigate complains of statutory nuisance made by the individuals in thei...