Harrington & Nephew Case Study
Aimee, David and Wally would like to prepare for a litigate against Harrington & Nephews Ltd for the nuisances being caused and whether Harrington & Nephew Ltd is liable and will depend on the three claimants successfully in order to prove that Harrington & Nephew Ltd’s conduct was vexatious, thereby making it illegal.
Private Nuisance is a constant, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. As noted there are 3 necessities under the definition which must be satisfied by a litigant to be successful to claim to the defendant. These 3 requisites must be considered as shown below.
1. For a claimant to succeed, he must show that there is an incessant intercession over a …show more content…
The dangerous thing has escaped.
Applying the Rule in Rylands, it might be argued that Aimee may only make a claim for the damages to the property that is the rose and the use of the garden and she would be likely successful in bringing a claim for personal injury here as she developed allergy from the emission of dust from the factory.
David’s son, Wally may only sue Harrington & Nephew Ltd for a tort in negligence for the damage caused to the paints by chemical emitted from the factory.
The next step is to consider any defences available in favour of Harrington & Nephew Ltd. The defendant company may raise the defence of prescription, which is applicable to the private nuisance if it is able to prove that the problem had continued for a period of twenty years then it would be a good defence. Harrington & Nephew Ltd has to prove that the interference is an actionable nuisance for the period of twenty years and the accused also have to prove that the interference is something done as part of his right on the plaintiff’s premises which is actually going to be amounted to an …show more content…
Damages to property
2. Interference to personal comfort
Remedy for nuisance is commonly monetary damages. An injunction or abatement may also be applied under certain circumstances. An injunction orders from the court is used to order the defendant to stop, remove, restrain or restrict a nuisance or abandon plans for a threatened nuisance.
Injunction is a drastic solution, used only when damage is permanent and is not satisfactorily compensable only to monetary damages. The function of remedies is to prevent nuisance from continuing. That is a person injured by a nuisance may bring an action and claim damages against the accused for the injury alone or together with claim of an injunction.
In Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co, the litigant was causing vibration and noise due to their activities. The defendant claim that the plaintiff should be limited to damages as the award of an injunction would deprive many Londoners of electricity. The court held that the discretion not to award the injunction therefore being exercised only in four exceptional circumstances that is where the injury to the plaintiffs legal right is small, is capable of being estimated in money terms, is one which can be adequately compensated by a small money payment, and it would be oppressive to the offender to grant an
Private Nuisance is a constant, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. As noted there are 3 necessities under the definition which must be satisfied by a litigant to be successful to claim to the defendant. These 3 requisites must be considered as shown below.
1. For a claimant to succeed, he must show that there is an incessant intercession over a …show more content…
The dangerous thing has escaped.
Applying the Rule in Rylands, it might be argued that Aimee may only make a claim for the damages to the property that is the rose and the use of the garden and she would be likely successful in bringing a claim for personal injury here as she developed allergy from the emission of dust from the factory.
David’s son, Wally may only sue Harrington & Nephew Ltd for a tort in negligence for the damage caused to the paints by chemical emitted from the factory.
The next step is to consider any defences available in favour of Harrington & Nephew Ltd. The defendant company may raise the defence of prescription, which is applicable to the private nuisance if it is able to prove that the problem had continued for a period of twenty years then it would be a good defence. Harrington & Nephew Ltd has to prove that the interference is an actionable nuisance for the period of twenty years and the accused also have to prove that the interference is something done as part of his right on the plaintiff’s premises which is actually going to be amounted to an …show more content…
Damages to property
2. Interference to personal comfort
Remedy for nuisance is commonly monetary damages. An injunction or abatement may also be applied under certain circumstances. An injunction orders from the court is used to order the defendant to stop, remove, restrain or restrict a nuisance or abandon plans for a threatened nuisance.
Injunction is a drastic solution, used only when damage is permanent and is not satisfactorily compensable only to monetary damages. The function of remedies is to prevent nuisance from continuing. That is a person injured by a nuisance may bring an action and claim damages against the accused for the injury alone or together with claim of an injunction.
In Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co, the litigant was causing vibration and noise due to their activities. The defendant claim that the plaintiff should be limited to damages as the award of an injunction would deprive many Londoners of electricity. The court held that the discretion not to award the injunction therefore being exercised only in four exceptional circumstances that is where the injury to the plaintiffs legal right is small, is capable of being estimated in money terms, is one which can be adequately compensated by a small money payment, and it would be oppressive to the offender to grant an