Private Nuisance - Statistics

Jump to: Answer Stats | Score Distribution | Your Scores

General Stats

This quiz has been taken 0 times
The average score is 0 of 26

Answer Stats

Hint	Answer	% Correct
2. Statutory authorityWhere a statute or legislation explicitly or implicitly authorizes the defendant’s activities AND the nuisance arises as a necessary/inevitable consequence of activities that are authorized by statute	Allen v Gulf Oil Refining	0%
The remoteness test (Wagon Mound) must be satisfied here: was the damage reasonably foreseeable to someone in D’s position at the time the relevant acts were done?	Cambridge Water	0%
7. MaliceMalicious interference is inherently unreasonable	Christie v Davey	0%
8. Temporary Temporary interference can constitute a private nuisance if the interference is sufficiently severe.	CRC v Kimbolton Fireworks	0%
2. ExtentIf it seriously impacts the claimant’s use and enjoyment of their land	Fearn v Board of Trustees	0%
4. DutyC has no duty to mitigate the nuisance.	Fearn v Board of Trustees	0%
1. DurationInterference that is continuous or long-term is more likely to be considered unreasonable than a one-time event.	Halsey v Esso	0%
3. Time of DayActivities that are reasonable at certain times may become unreasonable if they occur when people expect peace and quiet, such as late at night or early in the morning.	Halsey v Esso	0%
This interference can take two forms: • Physical damage to the claimant’s property (such as flooding, structural damage, or pollution). • Interference with comfort and convenience (such as noise, smells, smoke, or vibrations).	Helen's Smelting v Tipping	0%
A valid claimant is someone who has a proprietary interest in the land that is affected by the nuisance.	Hunter v Canary Wharf	0%
The owner of the land can be sued even if the nuisance is naturally occurring, so long as they satisfy the two criteria (i & ii).	Leakey v National Trust	0%
6. Social utilitySocial utility is immaterial in determining whether interference was unreasonable, but is relevant in deciding the remedy	Miller v Jackson	0%
It is not a defence for the defendant to argue that the claimant “came to the nuisance".	Miller v Jackson	0%
5. Sensitivity A defendant is not liable for nuisance if the interference only affects a person who is abnormally sensitive.	Robinson v Kilvert	0%
A valid defendant is typically someone who either: 1. Created or caused the nuisance (positive act), or 2. Is responsible for the land from which the nuisance originates, and: i) Knows or ought reasonably have known of the nuisance ii) Fails to take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate the nuisance.	Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan	0%
9. LocationWhat might be acceptable in one environment could be unreasonable in another (e.g., industrial activities in a residential area). The one exception to this is if there is property damage – in this case, this factor is immaterial.	Sturges v Bridgman	0%
1. PrescriptionIf D can prove that he has been continuing the nuisance for a period of 20 years against the claimant without any objection. However, the 20 years must begin from when the activity first becomes a nuisance, not just from when the activity began.	Sturges v Bridgman	0%
The mere grant of planning permission (usually done by a local authority) is NOT a defence.	Wheeler v Saunder	0%
..	x	0%
1. Interference with Use or Enjoyment of Land	x	0%
.	x	0%
2. Was the Interference Substantial/Unreasonable According to the Reasonable Person?	x	0%
.	x	0%
3. Reasonable Foreseeability	x	0%
.	x	0%
DEFENCES	x	0%

Score Distribution

Percent of People with Each Score

Percentile by Number Answered

Your Score History

You have not taken this quiz

Countries of the World Quiz

US States Quiz

Countries in World War II

MLB Baseball Teams Quiz

Top World Languages

Biggest Cities in the World

Original 151 Pokémon

Two Letter U.S. State Abbreviations

Mythical Creatures Quiz #1