This question relates to the topic nuisance is tort upon which the claimants would
be advised accordingly, here in this question Tracy and mike are the claimant
while on the other hand Dave and Anita are the defendants.
Nuisance which are private nuisance, public nuisance and the ruling in Ryland v
fletcher. As Ryland is a sub species of private nuisance.
Private nuisance is concerned where the states of illegal interference with use of
somones land or some right over it. (kharosandijan v bush) , secondly public
nuisance states where a member of majority has been affected from nuisance(
, along with that Ryland v fletcher states where a things escapes from the land
and harms the neighbor thus the occupier would be responsible.
Now there are three of types of private nuisance, which are firstly physical
damage to property, secondly any interference which violate reasonable
enjoyment of land or the nuisance of encroachment.
Now as per the facts it can be said that harvesting of the crops has caused Tracy
to disrupt her meditation practices which implies that this nuisance would be
considered as an interfence with reasonable enjoyment of land and thus
would be considered also as a private nuisance.(barr v biffa waste )
Now is to consider who can sue for private nuisance, as per the legal principles it
can be said that any person having legal interest or exclusive possession in
land can sue under the principle of nuisance (Malone v laskey).
Now as per the scenario it is clearly evident that Tracy and mike and thus it can be
said that she can sue under private nuisance (hunter v canary).
Along with that the person who can be sued are the creators of the nuisance as
here the creators of the nuisance are Dave and Anita.
Now in order to establish private nuisance there are factors which needs to be
determined, as private nuisance is defined in the case of (sedleigh denfield v O
Callaghan) stating that “ a useful test is reaosnbale as per the ordinary use of
makind living in society or more correctly in particular society”( rapier).
Responsible use of land has been satisfied by a number of factors which are type
of damage caused to land.(walter v selfe)
The facts suggest that here the fact that Tracy meditation lecture were being
disturbed which thus amounts to interference in reasonable enjoyment of
land.
Secondly that whether the nature of the locality was suitable to cause such
nuisance, the facts state that it was a village and Tracy was being disturbed by
the noise , but the fact it was a village it was a residential area where such kind
was a not reasonable .( AG v PYA)
Moreover duration and frequency of the nuisance, by looking at the facts it can
be said that the machine started to work from early hours at a very high
frequency and thus disturbs sleep and mediation and operated late into the
night .
Also the abnormal sensitivity of the nuisance would be considered which are
Tracy meditation practice and thus satisfies this requirement.(crown river
cruises v kimbolton )
Along with that it is to determine that wither there was a utility of the defendant
conduct, here it can be seen that farmland harvesting was quite a beneficial
activity for the society but overall not an important factor.( miller v Jackson )
And then above all is the malice, here it can be seen that the fact when mike was
complained by the disturbance he extended the working hours in the morning
which implies the fact that it malice aforethought existed.( Christie v davey)
Thus here it can be said that the nuisance creator would be hekld liabke for tort of
private nusiance for interfering in the normal enjoyment of land.
Now after coming through the anove facts it can be argued that the claimant can
sue for ineffective nuisance ( bliss v hall) claiming that this nuisance was
existing before her arrival, along with that the defence of utility would also be
considered ( adams v ursell) claiming that it was benfitting the society but
however these dfences are considered to be ineffective defences and would
not be considered successful. Thus here it can be stated that an injunction
would be given by the judges, prohibiting the defendant to stop the activities.
Now coming to the second scenario where Anita hens destroys Tracy flower bed
here it can be seen that this act of Anita would be considered under the rule of
Ryland v fletcher, which is a relatively less useful tort.( Transco plc v stockport )
The person who a sue may must need to have a legal interest or they might be
occupier of the land, here mike and Tracy can sue because they have were
occupier of the land ( page motors v Epson)
Secondly a person who can be sued if the mischief kept on his land has escaped
then the owner would be held liable.( stannard v gore)
However there are a number of requirements of Ryland v fletcher which are that
the D must bring something which can cause mischief on the land.( miles v
forest rock)
By looking at the above facts it can be said that chickens are small birds and as per
the case of Transco which was considered an exceptionally high risk of danger
or mischief, so thus chickens would not be considered a high risk of danger.
now as per the second requirement which is that the thing escapes and here in
the scenario it can be said that chickens were kept in free range which actually
escaped.
Along with that the danger must be kept in –non-natural use of land.( rickards v
Lothian )
The fact clearly indicate that chickens were kept in an area where they were kept
almost unsupervised which implies that they were kept in a non-natural use of
land.
Thus it can be said that the claim in Ryland v fletcher seems to be established, but
if due to some requirements if it fails, than the claimant would be likely to
claim in negligence.
Now coming to the requirement undertaken by the HOL stated in Cambridge
water co v eastern counties where it was stated that the occupier would be
held liable if he did not take steps to prevent esacpe from occurring.
However the strict modern approach in the case of Transco, where it was stated
that if the occupier has brought some unusual thing on land which have
execeptionally high risk to neighbouring property and igts escape , it would
amount to extraordinary and unusual use of land.
Along with that the claimants can also claim alternatively in other area of tort
such as negligence.
Now coming to the last scenario where mike suffered hay fever due to pollen thus
it can be said that here it can be said that mike would charge Dave under the
offence of public nuisance (AG v PYA quaries).
The fact that this section is also a crime and does also lies in the ambit of tort as
pe the provided certain requirments are fulfilled.
Police crime, sentencing, courts act April 2002 which than abolished the common
law offence of public nuisance.
Thus in order to hold the defendant liable 2 requirments needs to be established
firstly wither the nuisance has effected a class or not ( R v rimmington)
Here the fact that hay fever was caused due to pollen from crops especially in
summer and paring thus it can be said that it was affecting a large number of
class.
Secondly the fact that it caused any kind of special damage or not (tate and layle
industries)
, here thus it can be said that hay fever would lie under the ambit of physical
injury and thus it can be said that special damage was caused ( winter bottom
v lord derby)