Law And Contract Resit Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Law And Contract Resit - Case Study Example In this case four issues arise and these are noise and vibrations disturbing Pub's customer, Bloggs & Co Builders used the student car park to the jib of a crane, construction vehicles are constantly blocking the entrance of Public house owner and they work continues on site Saturday and Sunday mornings as a result the pub manager was disturbed.Winfield and Jolowicz defence private nuisance as an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection, with it. This principle is neatly encapsulated in the words of Lord Wright in Sedleigh-Denfield v Callaghan1, where he said that a balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with. From it is implicit that as between neighbours, some measure of interference with the use and enjoyment of each other's land is permissible.The test is one of 'reasonable user' balancing the interest of defendan ts to use their land as legally permitted against the conflicting interest of claimants to have quite enjoyment of their land. It is a not a test of reasonable care. In Rapier v London Tramways Co2 held that it is no defence to prove that the defendant had taken all reasonable care to prevent the nuisance occurring. The Court will look at the result of defendant's conduct. In Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather3, it was held that if the user is reasonable the defendant is not be liable for consequent to his neighbour's enjoyment of his land. In order to be able to sue for a Private nuisance, the claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land affected. In Malone v Laskey4 and Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd5 it was held that landowners and tenants have right to bring an action but excludes mere licensee. So from the fact of the question it can be said pub owner and owners of public house and Birmingham City University may bring an action under private nuisance. But in question it is not clear whether pub manager was owner, tenant or license of the premises. However the location is an important factor. The locality in which the claimant's premises are situated is a second factor which assists the Courts in determining whether the interference complained of is sufficiently substantial to amount to a nuisance. The expectations of a claimant, in terms of comfort, peace and quiet, will naturally vary according to the location of his house or business. The point was succinctly made in Sturges v Bridgeman6, in which case a physician complained about the noise generated by a neighbouring confectioner who was operating a pestle and motor. Thesinger LJ stated that what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so according to the area in which it occurs. The emission of smoke from a factory would not be considered a nuisance in an industrial estate, but would be likely to be found to be a nuisance in a largely residential area. In Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co. Ltd7 held that a good example is the transformation of the London docklands from an industrial area to a now exclusive residential development. In this case it was held that planning permission which had been granted to change the use of an old naval dockward into commercial port should be taken into have effective a change in the character of the neighbourhood. The Court held that planning permission is not enough by itself to change the nature of the locality, although this may occur as a matter of fact due to investment in the area. The CA took the view in Wheeler v JJ Saunder Ltd8