《年长宁区公办幼儿园招生地段表所.ppt 43页

Ps’claim: Defendants owed the owners and occupiers of the properties neighbouring Luna Park, a duty to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of economic loss with respect to their properties. - IE they tried to avoid the nuisance provision, by claiming that Luna Park has caused a negligent infliction of economic loss to owners of adjacent properties. D’s claim: the standing of the plaintiffs to injunctive relief depends upon the exposure of their properties to noise emissions, and that on that basis proceedings on the Injunction Claim are “with respect to the emission of noise”. . Held: The claim is not a claim with respect to the emission of noise from the Luna Park site, and is not barred by s 19A(1). However, the Negligence Claim is not maintainable by reason of s 19A, and ought to be struck out (Brereton J) [37] The phrase “with respect to” is one of “the widest possible connection” having “the widest possible meaning of any expression intended to convey some connection or relation between the two subject-matters to which the wods refer”: Maritime Services Board v Murray (1993) 52 IR 455. [43] Here, P is saying that they’re relying on “loss of amenity”. D arguing that such loss of amenity MUST be exposure to noise. Given that noise was only part of it, Brereton J said that s19A doesn’t prevent the P from having standing to sue for injunctive relief. HOWEVER: the negligence claim based on a duty (which D argued) which P argued “to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of economic loss with respect to their properties.” They are arguing that the operating of the thrill rides have caused, and will continue to cause, economic loss and damage. Damage claimed is the loss of value occasioned by ongoing exposure to noise. THEN s19A(1) has the effect that no proceedings lie with respect to such emissions, and no REMEDY is available in respect of them. * Wht about malicious intent? - Where D’s conduct even slightly malicious, P can claim Hollywood Silverfox: P had silver fox farm- sign out the front: “Hollywood Silver Fox Farm”- sign could be seen from D’s farm. D wanted to turn his estate into building estate. Thought the silver fox farm (and the sign that could be seen) would be detrimental. D requested P to move the sign, but P refused a couple of times. D got a bit angry: said if the sign wasn’t removed he would shoot gunshots at time of breeding to stop vixens breeding D carried out threat- ‘claimed’ shots were to keep rabbits down. P sued: shots had bad effect on vixens- one did not breed, another devoured 4 of her young. HELD: court found that shooting was done for ANNOYANCE, not to keep down rabbits. Found it to be malicious. Thus otherwise reasonable act was made unreasonable by malice. * Start with: PROPIETARY INTEREST: must be owner, TENNANT, or mortgagee: Malone Malone: - Have to show how the alleged nuisance has affected their specific interest. * Vic Park - HCA held: P could not charge or prohibit people from viewing the racecourse from outside the land. * GET OLD NOTES SHEET * Back in Australia- since Hunter, only one Australian court has considered whether licensee has title to sue: Stockwell v Victoria [2001]- applied Hunter: only tennant, owner had title to sue. NO HCA consideration of this. DISCUSSION POINT: Should this tort apply to families of person who has interest in the land? Is the whole owner/occupier restraint necessary? Could extend the use of the word ‘occupier’ to include P’s in occupation based on dictionary definition (the irony is that nuisance is not defined as we ordinarily use it anyway) FLAW: at law, occupation MEANS exercising physical control or taking posession over land. ‘In residence’ has never been a common law right. Where would you extend to? No reasonable logiv- why just family/spouse: why not friends/visitors? Doing this makes the basis of the claim INJURY rather than harm to land- and in that case you’d go negligence/trespass anyway. If allowed to go too far, Lord Hoffman in Hunter has said “once nuisance has escaped the bounds of being a tort against land, there seems no logic in compromise limitations.” Going along this path would lead to the SUPERTORT of negligence. Extending Common Law= Judicial Activism- does the current position lead to ‘senseless discrimination against some claimants?’ Usually, can’t the owner sue anyway? If it’s something like smoke or noise, the owner will be just as affected as a daughter. If P is actually injured, there should be case in negligence anyway. * Robinson: D owned building and leased ground floor to P, who used space for paper warehouse. D maintained basement of building where he carried on box manufacturing business- needed hot dry air for business. Air on P’s floor became 27 degrees- dried P’s brown paper, making it less valuable. Held: heat was not excessive- didn’t interfere with workers, and only interfered with one type of paper. NO Nuisance. * In general, the person who creates the nuisance will be liable NO MATTER what interest they have in the land where nuisance came from. Fennel: D was a contractor- excavated soil from block of land. So metime later, adjoining block of land started to subside as result of excavation. Hargrave D also liable where they have not created the nuisance, but they’ve done nothing to stop it- they have ‘continued or adopted it. ’Taking of steps to eliminate nuisance known to D, even if steps are ineffective, does not amount to continuing or adopting nuiance. BUT then it would become negligence rather than nuisance: D liable for 3rd parties De Jager D was owner/occupier of a hall which was hired out for occasions. P was neighbour- would complain about loud noise during functions. D warned patrons to keep noise down and installed regulator to keep noise down. D’s guests kept on making noise though. HELD: D liable. D let hall for purpose of being used for functions, which were likely to be noisy. Its likely that the noise will often get excessive, and thus nuisance created. * * SUB OLD NOTES.. * * Public: interfering with the rights of a class of public. Since it is not interference with LAND, you could sue for personal injury. Private: interfering with the rights associated with owning land * Public Nuisance v Private Nuisance What’s the difference?? Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. 1. INTERFERENCE: QUEUES OBSTRUCTING PUBLIC HIGHWAYS AND ROADS Silservice Pty Ltd v Supreme Bread Pty Ltd Harper v GN Haden Sons (1933) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. THE DEGREE OF INTERFERENCE It is not every interference however slight that constitutes an actionable nuisance; the interference must be substantial and material York Bros v Commissioner of main Roads Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. 2. Who can sue? P may sue in public nuisance only if he/she can establish special damage above and beyond that suffered by other members of the affected public Walsh v Ervin Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Deepcliffe Pty Ltd v City of the Gold Coast  “I cannot see that the appellants here can make out a case that they were denied free uninterrupted access to the roadway by the conduct of the respondents in imposing the parking restrictions in question. True, the parking restrictions were in adjajcent streets, but it cannot be said that access to and from the roadway was denied or seriously impaired… As the learned trial judge observed, “The shorter time limit did not materially alter the position.’ The fact that parking was limited to 1hr duration in portions of two streets near the restaurant could not in law constitute an actionable nuisance on he ground that potential customers were prevented from getting to the restaurant (continuing).” Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. It is difficult to see how the conduct in question of the respondents constituted a nuisance… all the available parking space could have been taken by residents and their visitors at any given point of time.” - per Helman J Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. PUBLIC BENEFIT AND PUBLIC NUISANCE In general public benefit is not a defence that can defeat P’s objections to D’s conduct Where the interference to P is not substantial, the public benefit argument may be used to reinforce the justification to the inconvenience caused to P Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Public Nuisance: The Roadmap Establishment (a) Act/omission which materially affects collective rights of the public Who can sue? (a) The state (b) A plaintiff who suffers ‘special damage’ Who can be sued? Person who created the nuisance Others Defences Remedies Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. 4. Defences Statutory authority York Bros v Commissioner for Main Roads (1983) Consent Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. 5. REMEDIES Abatement of nuisance Injunction to prevent the continuation Damages Bone v Seale [1975] Oldham v Lawson (no. 1) [1976] Challen v McLeod Country Club [2001] Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting [1895] Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. WRAP-UP NUISANCE PRIVATE PUBLIC NUISANCE Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Mission accomplished? Well? What about my 21st? Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. * Dictionary definition: NOT the tort! * * * * Negligence v Nuisance: Definitely not mutually exclusive: there is a lot of overlap. Nuisance v Negligence Nuisance: Private: unlawful interference with land. Public: material interference with life of public at large. Can amount to less than DAMAGE. Can be mere IRRITATION. Negligence: Where there is a DOC, breach, damage Historically: Nuisance started developing in 12th century Negligence began in 1932 Who can sue Private Nuisance only affects land, so only person with legal right to land can sue Public Nuisance: only member of public suffering special damage Negligence: neither need interest in land, nor special damage: just damage resulting from DOC. Damage Nuisance: subtle damage- you can have material damage, but can also hjave ‘loss of quiet enjoyment’ Nuisance v Trespass From 12th C, Common Law recognised 3 distinct interferences with land: Dissesina: Deprive him/her completely of land Transgressio: physically transgressing onto someone’s land (this became trespass) Nocumentum: No disposession/physical transgression, but still an interference. - This is why it’s a PROPERTY-BASED tort. * Can be 1 of 2 things: material interference, or interference which affects the ENJOYMENT of land. Halsey: Esso was in area zoned industrial. Halsey in area zoned residential. Bunch of interferences: Acid smuts damaged paintwork to P’s car Acid smuts damaged laundry on clothes line (stained and made holes) Noise at night-time between 10am and 6am when trucks leaving depot Occasional smell of oil and other smells. Here, MATERIAL interference included actual damage to paintwork, laundry LOSS OF ENJOYMENT included smells Material Interference Misfeasance: strict liability Must be such damage as to cause actual harm EG killing trees through noxious fumes: St Helens Continuing or recurrent Infrequent interference less likely to support damages/injunction: Banford EG Bonic: accidental damage caused by P’s crops by neighbouring D’s aerial spraying. HELD: apply ordinary principles of negligence. Nonfeasance: failure to remove nuisance gives rise to ‘continuing or adopting it’ 2. Interfering with Quiet Enjoyment Must be so substantial as to cause damage to him: Scholl J in Munro: Loss of single night’s sleep can be held to be substantial interference. EG: neighbour’s drunken singing and swearing Smells from a brick kiln Vibration from a factory * * NEW Facts - Applicant claimed respondents large fig trees damaged sewer pipe situated on applicants property. Applicant sought payment by respondent to fully meet cost of replacing sewer pipes. Held- Respondents trees damaged applicants sewer pipes because evidence of arborist showed fig tree roots in pipes and respondents fig trees only species in vicinity. - Cost of replacing pipes should be apportioned because of possible forseeability of damage being occasioned by tree roots at time applicants property constructed. * NEW Facts Application to prevent damage to property from tree on adjoining land. Trees located on respondents neighbouring property. One tree fell across applicants garage. Second tree previously dropped branches from high winds. Held Removal of tree should be ordered because likely to damage applicants property in near future and no resistance from respondent. Tree with structural concerns should not be removed because insufficiently serious but warranted further investigation. * New Facts Application for removal of trees and compensation for property damage. Trees mature and unlikely to increase in size. Trees created minor pavement cracks. Cracks did not inhibit pedestrian or vehicle access. Trees damaged both driveways. Held Removal of trees unwarranted by pavement damage because further damage unlikely given maturity of trees. Driveway damage apportioned because aware of damage for some time before applications brought. * Facts Application for pruning of tree. Subject tree on respondents property. Applicant claimed tree diseased and posed risk of damage to property and injury to persons. Applicant sought pruning of respondents tree at respondents expense. Whether risk of damage reasonably likely. Held Risk of damage not reasonably likely because evidence of arborist concluded no immediate risk of significant limb drop from tree. * Interference has to be UNREASONABLE. How do you do this? Balance interests of P and D. * Question of degree: The loss of 1 night’s sleep can be seen as a serious interference: Munro (horse stable case) Hasley: injunction issued for noise between 10pm and 6am but not during day * * * Locality Is it residential? Munro: stable with horses kicking next to P’s house. Time Particularly when talking about noise Duration How long, how many days Wherry P was a solicitor working at an office on Clarence St. D was an excavator working on big development project. D was making noise during business hours: was generating 75 decibels. Australian standard said recommended levels were no louder than 45DB D argued noise necessary for developing the area, and noise was only temporary. HELD: Nuisance held. Injunction granted between 8am-1pm and 2pm-5pm. Nature of activities: Thompson: D using premises for prostitution, which was regarded as interference because of the blatant effect on sense of sight in neighbourhood BUT NOTE: McKenzie: stopped Salvos from playing band music on 7am Sunday mornings. GIVE INDIA EXAMPLE: Shiva festival Availability of Alternatives: Cohen: P lived inner city suburb in apartment. Sued for interference caused by excessive noise caused almost daily by D’s garbage trucks. HELD: for P: Council could have done it at a time which was more appropriate. * Facts Luna Park opened in 1935. Park has closed and opened a number of times over the years. It’s one of 2 amusement parks in the world that is protected by government legislation. Interestingly, another torts case against Luna Park: 1979 Ghost Train fire- killed 6 children and 1 adult when it caught fire. HELD: Park manager’s failed in DOC to its patrons. When it was reopened in 1995, the new rollercoaster was put in. P were neighbours in nearby street, complaining about amount of noise- from machinery and riders’ screams. Noise was above 5DB louder than background noise, and happened every couple of minutes. D argued that this had always been the nature of the locality since it opened- area copped lots of noise anyway from trains and traffic on bridge. HELD: There WAS nuisance, despite locality and reasonable noise level for that area. Interestingly, Hodgson said that if the rollercoaster was not noiser than the earlier ones, there would have been no nuisance. Injunction granted only in part- rollercoaster could only work 5.30pm-11pm on Fri and 10am-11pm on Sat. * People have always tried bringing actions against Lunar Park Argument of private property v public use of space Seidler: action failed * NUISANCE Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. WHAT IS NUISANCE? An unreasonable conduct that materially interferes with the ordinary comfort of human existence Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Our mission for tonight What do we do about the woman across the road who destroyed my 21st? Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. THE TWO ‘SIDES’ OF NUISANCE NUISANCE PRIVATE PUBLIC NUISANCE Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Private Nuisance- The Roadmap Establishment (a) Unlawful interference with someone’s interest in land (b) Balance of rights (c) Intangible interference Who can sue? (a) Proprietary interest (b) Family members? Who can be sued? Person who created the nuisance Others Defences Remedies Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Nuisance in context Nuisance v Negligence Nuisance v Trespass Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. 1(a) Interference with land The substantial interference with the plaintiffs use of his/her land by the unreasonable conduct of the defendant: Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961] Unlawful interference with P’s interest in land Misfeasance: St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1965) Bonic v Fieldair (1999) Nonfeasance: The tort protects against interferences with the enjoyment of land Munro v Southern Dairies [1955] Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. 1. Establishment- interference “Inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort physically of human existence, not merely according to dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people.” - Knight Bruce VC in Walter v Selfe (1851) 1(a) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. P Baer Investments Pty Ltd v University of New South Wales [2007] NSWLEC 128; Facts Issues Whether respondents trees damaged applicants sewer pipes. Whether cost of replacing pipes should be apportioned Held: 1(a) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. ONeill v Frost [2007] NSWLEC 400; BC200705292 Facts Issue: Whether removal of fallen tree should be ordered. Whether tree with structural concerns should be removed. Held: Application granted in part. 1(a) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Vella v Owners of Strata Plan 8670 [2007] NSWLEC 365; BC200704853 Facts Applicant applied for removal of trees six years after aware of damage. Issue: Whether trees warranted removal because damaged pavement. Whether damage should be apportioned because applicant aware of damage. Held: Application granted in part. 1(a) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Hunt v Bedford — [2007] NSWLEC 130; BC200701745 Facts Held: Application dismissed. 1(a) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. 1(b) The Balancing of Interests “Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas” (“Use your own thing so as not to harm that of another”) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. “A dweller in towns cannot expect to have as pure air, as free from smoke, smell, and noise as if he lived in the country, and distant from other dwellings, and yet an excess of smoke, smell, and noise may give a cause of action, but in each of such cases it becomes a question of degree, and the question is in each case whether it amounts to a nuisance which will give a right of action.” - Lord Halsbury in Colls v Home Colonial Stores [1904] - Munro v Southern Dairies [1955], Hasley v Esso Petroleum [1961] 1(b) Establishment- balancing Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Gray v State of New South Wales Matter No 2391/96 (31 July 1997) The law in this sort of case is tolerably clear. The law of nuisance, the tort upon which the plaintiffs sue, is not to protect people, but to protect property values. That is so because it is an ancient remedy that has come down through the ages. Thus the mere fact that one is disturbed by noise or one gets irritated by prying children or ones privacy is invaded is not sufficient to make out the tort of nuisance…. The plaintiffs are, however, entitled not to have the value of their property diminished by the noisy activities of the defendants (Young J) 1(b) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. A useful test is perhaps what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or more correctly in a particular society. (per Lord Wright in Sedleigh-Denfield v. OCallaghan (1940) AC, at p 903 ) Gray v State of New South Wales Matter No 2391/96 (31 July 1997) 1(b) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. 1(b) How do we balance? Unreasonable is based on the reasonable person, and what ordinary ‘give and take’ limits are. Locality: Munro v Southern Dairies Time, and duration: Wherry v KB Hutcherson Pty Ltd (1987) NSW Nature of activities: Thompson-Schwab v Costaki (1956), McKenzie v Powley (1916) Availability of alternatives: Cohen v Perth (2000) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Seidler v Luna Park Reserve Trust (1995) NSW Unreported Facts Rollercoaster Hours: Non-School Holidays Friday: 5.30pm-10pm Sat: 10am-7pm Sun: 11am-7pm School Holidays Thurs: 10am-8pm Fri/Sat: 10am-11pm and Sun: 11am-7pm. Held Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. LUNA PARK CASES Seidler v Luna Park Reserve Trust (1995) Luna Park Site Amendment Noise Control Act 2005 19A Legal proceedings and other noise abatement action(1) No criminal proceedings, no civil proceedings (whether at law or in equity) and no noise abatement action may be taken against any person with respect to the emission of noise from the Luna Park site.(2) The emission of noise from the Luna Park site does not constitute a public or private nuisance.(3) This section does not apply to or in respect of noise that exceeds the maximum permissible noise level at the closest residential facade Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Street 7 ors v Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd 1 or [2006] NSWSC 230 (6 April 2006) Ps’claim D’s claim Held (Brereton J) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. THE NATURE OF D’S CONDUCT D’s conduct must be unreasonable. In general act/conduct which is reasonably necessary for the normal user of land would not be considered unreasonable Malicious intent Hollywood Silverfox Farm Ltd v Emmett Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. 2. WHO CAN SUE? P must have proprietary interest in the affected land to be able to sue “A sulphurous chimney in a residential area is not nuisance because it makes householders cough and splutter but because it prevents them taking their ease in their gardens. It is for this reason that the plaintiff in an action for nuisance must show some title to realty.” - Newark, The Boundaries of Nuisance (1949) Malone v Laskey [1907] Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Doesn’t include P’s view of property Victoria Park Racing Recreation Grounds v Taylor (1937) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Who Can Sue? The Cases Oldham v Lawson [1976] VR 654 Khorasandjian v. Bush [1993] Q.B. 727, Hunter v Canary Wharf Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. “If a P, such as the daughter in Khorsandjian, is harassed by abusive telephone calls, the gravamen of the complaint lies in the harassment which is just as much an abuse, or indeed an invasion of her privacy, whether she is pestered in this way in her mother’s house, or even in her car with a mobile phone. In truth, what the CA appears to have been doing was to exploit the law of private nuisance in order to create by the back door a tort of harassment which was only partially effective in that it was artificially limited to harassment which takes place at her home. I myself do not think this is a satisfactory manner in which to develop the law, especially when the step taken was inconsistent with another decision in the CA in Malone”- LORD GOFF Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. 2(cont) ABNORMAL PLANTIFFS For sensitive uses of land, interference not unreasonable unless it would have been unreasonable to ordinary use of land. Robinson v Kilvert (1889) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. 3. WHO MAY BE SUED? The creators of the nuisance Fennel v Robson Excavations Pty Ltd (1977) Hargrave v Goldman (1963) De Jager v Payneham Magill Lodges (1984) Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Checking In: Private Nuisance Establishment (a) Unlawful interference with someone’s interest in land (b) Balance of rights (c) Intangible interference Who can sue? (a) Proprietary interest (b) Family members? Who can be sued? Person who created the nuisance Others Defences Remedies Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Your Turn Steve’s own a home at 8 Wombeyan Ct, Wattle Grove. Kit and Carlos live in a house adjoining Steve. Kit and Carlos are really security conscious and have installed floodlights and camera surveillance equipment. The floodlights and surveillance equipment are positioned in a way that they illuminate Steve’s backyard and may record video tape everything that occurs there. Steve uses his backyard to hang up his clothes, doing his gardening, and sitting and enjoying his radio. He has become distressed since the electronic gear has gone in, and he no longer feels he can enjoy his backyard as he did before. The floodlight system is activated by a sensor, which switches the lights on with movement or noise (such as a movement in Steve’s backyard). When the equipment is activated the lights come on and stay on on for 10 mins, and the camera may be activated. Steve contends that he is suffering realth issues as a result of the continued illumination of his land. Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd. Public Nuisance: The Roadmap Establishment (a) Act/omission which materially affects collective rights of the public Who can sue? (a) The state (b) A plaintiff who suffers ‘special damage’ Who can be sued? Person who created the nuisance Others Defences Remedies Evaluation only. Created with Aspose.Slides for .NET 3.5 Client Profile 5.2.0.0. Copyright 2004-2011 Aspose Pty Ltd.