25700181594532256183125164894692912590198925926895757655642347577356718961108372098Volenti non fit injuria
25700181594532256183125164894692912590198925926895757655642347577356718961108372098Volenti non fit injuria
0Volenti non fit injuria
36349298282498Statutory authority
0Statutory authority
-2342688290056Contributory Negligence
00Contributory Negligence
right5221741Sometimes considered factors (if relevant on the facts)
00Sometimes considered factors (if relevant on the facts)
16625451239352Someone with a legal standing
00Someone with a legal standing
13904938849276Human Rights Act 1998 and Private NuisanceMarcic v Thames Water Utilities and Dennis v Ministry of Defence
00Human Rights Act 1998 and Private NuisanceMarcic v Thames Water Utilities and Dennis v Ministry of Defence
34006618161587259275281993721398364813135919040507888983 Defences
00 Defences
37633986075847The individual sensitivity of the claimant-Robinson v Kilvert (sensitivity); Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris
The motive of the defendant-Christie v Davie (bad intention); Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet (malice)
00The individual sensitivity of the claimant-Robinson v Kilvert (sensitivity); Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris
The motive of the defendant-Christie v Davie (bad intention); Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet (malice)
17607876022949The nature of the location-Sturges v Bridgman. Gillingham v Medway (change of locality); Coventry v Lawrence (planning permission)
00The nature of the location-Sturges v Bridgman. Gillingham v Medway (change of locality); Coventry v Lawrence (planning permission)
-1889265985164Intensity of interference-Southwark LBC v Mills Kennaway v Thompson
00Intensity of interference-Southwark LBC v Mills Kennaway v Thompson
3566916497241217456735244576Sometimes considered factors
0Sometimes considered factors
13980505002750-2119595267136Always considered factors
0Always considered factors
261536049800792570018408079317456004299606Was the defendant an unreasonable user of the land?-Reasonable user test.
0Was the defendant an unreasonable user of the land?-Reasonable user test.
2570018340066117683393672436So, what is nuisance?
So, what is nuisance?
17455472742875Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd-a substantial link to the property
0Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd-a substantial link to the property
17530411851350Malone v Laskey-proprietary interest is required
0Malone v Laskey-proprietary interest is required
2584502100508425693883929651782823694800 Who can sue?
0 Who can sue?
1730117-373 Private Nuisance
Private Nuisance
-3429001066800S.1(1) and s.2(1)when the duty of care is owed.
00S.1(1) and s.2(1)when the duty of care is owed.
533400752475-371475257175Occupiers Liability Act 1957-lawful visitors
0Occupiers Liability Act 1957-lawful visitors
5048250798195050768256429375504825050006255029200362902550196752200275505777514763755029200714375523875514350053340015144753933825-571501152525-7620039719258296275S.1(4)Standard of Care
S.1(5)Warning
S.1(4)Standard of Care
S.1(5)Warning
39338256781800S.1(3)(c): The risk is one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection (Tomlison v Congleton Borough Council; Simonds v Isle of Wight Council)
00S.1(3)(c): The risk is one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection (Tomlison v Congleton Borough Council; Simonds v Isle of Wight Council)
38957255447665S.1(3)(b): The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone is in the vicinity of the danger (Swain v Puri; Donoghue v Folkestone)
0S.1(3)(b): The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone is in the vicinity of the danger (Swain v Puri; Donoghue v Folkestone)
-3333755562600S.2(2)Standard of care is for a visitor to be reasonably safe (Pollock v Cahill; Bowen v National Trust; Kiapasha v Laverton)
Ss.2(3)(a)-(b) and 2(4)(a)-(b)standard of care and specific guidance
0S.2(2)Standard of care is for a visitor to be reasonably safe (Pollock v Cahill; Bowen v National Trust; Kiapasha v Laverton)
Ss.2(3)(a)-(b) and 2(4)(a)-(b)standard of care and specific guidance
39052504038600S.1(3)(a): The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists (Rhind v Astbury Water Park)
00S.1(3)(a): The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists (Rhind v Astbury Water Park)
38766752600325S.1(3)(a)-(c): Duty of care to trespassers will arise only if three conditions are satisfied (See also: Tomlison v Congleton Borough Council)
0S.1(3)(a)-(c): Duty of care to trespassers will arise only if three conditions are satisfied (See also: Tomlison v Congleton Borough Council)
39909751733550S.1(2)Definition of occupiers and premises
S.1(2)Definition of occupiers and premises
-3429001866900S.1(2)Occupiers needs to be in control of the premises (Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd; and Harris v Birkenhead)
--Lawful visitor is the one who receives invitation or permission (Spearman v Royal United Bath Hospitals NHS; Kolasa v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust; Darby v National Trust; Ferguson v Welsh.
S.1(3)Premises include any fixed or moveable structure (Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council; Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals)
0S.1(2)Occupiers needs to be in control of the premises (Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd; and Harris v Birkenhead)
--Lawful visitor is the one who receives invitation or permission (Spearman v Royal United Bath Hospitals NHS; Kolasa v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust; Darby v National Trust; Ferguson v Welsh.
S.1(3)Premises include any fixed or moveable structure (Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council; Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals)
40005001076325S.1(1)(a)general on duty of care
0S.1(1)(a)general on duty of care
4038600237490Occupiers Liability Act 1984-unlawful visitors
00Occupiers Liability Act 1984-unlawful visitors
1771650-457200Occupiers Liability
0Occupiers Liability
54419505295900389890053022501479550520700044640504095750453390030861004635503067050454660018415004635501778000417830083820046355085090025844503810044386505816600The shock is caused: a sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event which violently agitates the mind
Sion v Hampstead Health Authority; North Glamorgan v Walters; Wild v Southend Hospital; Liverpool Womens Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne; RE and others v Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust
00The shock is caused: a sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event which violently agitates the mind
Sion v Hampstead Health Authority; North Glamorgan v Walters; Wild v Southend Hospital; Liverpool Womens Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne; RE and others v Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust
33655004438650Alcock: the Alcock control mechanism: (1) A relationship with a victim; (2) Closeness to the claimant; (3) The shock is caused
0Alcock: the Alcock control mechanism: (1) A relationship with a victim; (2) Closeness to the claimant; (3) The shock is caused
34544003435350McLoughlin v OBrian: immediate aftermath (modern approach)
0McLoughlin v OBrian: immediate aftermath (modern approach)
36004502063750Bourhill: psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude in the same situation
00Bourhill: psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude in the same situation
34328101181100Secondary Victims (parties who witnessed an accident)
00Secondary Victims (parties who witnessed an accident)
-3302003511550Courts might allow claim with no accidents if in a clinical setting: e.g. Wild (injuries during management of labour)and YAH (a baby is part of its mother until birth)
0Courts might allow claim with no accidents if in a clinical setting: e.g. Wild (injuries during management of labour)and YAH (a baby is part of its mother until birth)
-3048002044700Page v Smith: zone of physical danger and reasonable foreseeability. See Rothwell
0Page v Smith: zone of physical danger and reasonable foreseeability. See Rothwell
-3683001130300Primary Victims (parties who are involved in an accient00Primary Victims (parties who are involved in an accient1035050330200Recognised psychiatric illness: PTSD, depression, anxiety neurosis and so on
00Recognised psychiatric illness: PTSD, depression, anxiety neurosis and so on
1746250-215900 Psychiatric Harm
0 Psychiatric Harm
21653505816600Closeness to a claimant: proximity to the accident and means by which the shock is caused (Taylor v A Novo).
Immediate aftermathGalli-Atkinson (immediate aftermath interpreted generously); Berisha v Stone (immediate aftermath approached restrictively)
0Closeness to a claimant: proximity to the accident and means by which the shock is caused (Taylor v A Novo).
Immediate aftermathGalli-Atkinson (immediate aftermath interpreted generously); Berisha v Stone (immediate aftermath approached restrictively)
-5207005797550A relationship with a victim: close ties of love and affection (spouses, parents and children are presumed, the rest needs evidence)
00A relationship with a victim: close ties of love and affection (spouses, parents and children are presumed, the rest needs evidence)
