Nuisance Law notes from pers research and LLB training
NUISANCE LAW (SCOTS) NOTES
From J.M. Thomson, ‘Delictual Liability’, Butterworths 1994.
Unlike ‘in aemulationem vicini’ NUISANCE is a continuing act.
AND
Liability/wrong arises even when there is no intention to create a nuisance.
‘sic utere tuo ut aienum non laedas’ use your own property in such a way that you do not do harm to others.
N.B. The harm must be ‘plus quam tolerabile’ more than the other person can be reasonably expected to tolerate.
This is a matter of fact and degree.
It cannot be argued that the person came into the vicinity of the nuisance.
See ‘Watt v Jamieson’ 1954 SC 56 at 58 per Lord President Cooper.
Pg159 ‘Webster v Lord Advocate’ 1984 SLT 13
A had bought a flat in Ediburgh near the Castle. As the Edinburgh festival approached, the enjoyment of her flat was disturbed by the noise of erecting the grandstand for the military tatoo. The court held that this was a prima facie case of nuisance.
It was irrelevant that the noise could be reduced if the pursuer closed her windows or installed double glazing.
While accepting that the tatoo was a valuable and profitable part of the Festival, this ‘greater good’ argument was not sufficient to prevent the court ordering that the nuisance should cease.
The court granted a ‘declarator’ that a nuisance was established and that the defender should take steps to ensure that its’s grandstand was constructed by using less noisy techniques.
*BE CAREFUL – it is a defence that the conduct constituting the nuisance was carried out with statutory authority.
At (14) Lord Stott distinguishes ‘Miller v Jackson’ [1977] QB 966 from the Law of Scotland.
Thus this case is supported by ‘Inglis v Shotts Iron Co’ (1881) 8 R. 1006; (1882) 9 R (HL) 91. See Lord Blackburn at p88 and Lord Watson at p90.
This case also cites, ‘Bank of Scotland v Stewart’ (1891) 18 R 957 – it does not matter that the loss to B(nuisance maker) would be ‘out of proportion’ or far greater
From J.M. Thomson, ‘Delictual Liability’, Butterworths 1994.
Unlike ‘in aemulationem vicini’ NUISANCE is a continuing act.
AND
Liability/wrong arises even when there is no intention to create a nuisance.
‘sic utere tuo ut aienum non laedas’ use your own property in such a way that you do not do harm to others.
N.B. The harm must be ‘plus quam tolerabile’ more than the other person can be reasonably expected to tolerate.
This is a matter of fact and degree.
It cannot be argued that the person came into the vicinity of the nuisance.
See ‘Watt v Jamieson’ 1954 SC 56 at 58 per Lord President Cooper.
Pg159 ‘Webster v Lord Advocate’ 1984 SLT 13
A had bought a flat in Ediburgh near the Castle. As the Edinburgh festival approached, the enjoyment of her flat was disturbed by the noise of erecting the grandstand for the military tatoo. The court held that this was a prima facie case of nuisance.
It was irrelevant that the noise could be reduced if the pursuer closed her windows or installed double glazing.
While accepting that the tatoo was a valuable and profitable part of the Festival, this ‘greater good’ argument was not sufficient to prevent the court ordering that the nuisance should cease.
The court granted a ‘declarator’ that a nuisance was established and that the defender should take steps to ensure that its’s grandstand was constructed by using less noisy techniques.
*BE CAREFUL – it is a defence that the conduct constituting the nuisance was carried out with statutory authority.
At (14) Lord Stott distinguishes ‘Miller v Jackson’ [1977] QB 966 from the Law of Scotland.
Thus this case is supported by ‘Inglis v Shotts Iron Co’ (1881) 8 R. 1006; (1882) 9 R (HL) 91. See Lord Blackburn at p88 and Lord Watson at p90.
This case also cites, ‘Bank of Scotland v Stewart’ (1891) 18 R 957 – it does not matter that the loss to B(nuisance maker) would be ‘out of proportion’ or far greater