PREVIEW: SCAFFOLDS
PRIVATE NUISANCE
1. Does the Plaintiff have a title to sue?
a. Is the Plaintiff the legal owner or legal tenant in possession?
i. Does the Plaintiff have a property interest in land ( Hunter v Canary Wharf ) or a right to occupy or exclusively possess land ( Oldham v Lawson )?
1. Yes → They have title to sue 2. No → They do not have title to sue ii. Does not extend to:
1. Licensees who do not have property interests in the affected land ( Hunter v Canary Wharf )
2. Husbands where their wives are the owner ( Oldham v Lawson ) 3. Does not extend to family members ( Hunter v Canary Wharf ) 4. Subtenants
2. Has there been unreasonable interference with an occupier’s use or enjoyment of land?
( Munro v Southern Dairies; Thompson-Schwab v Costaki )?
a. An action in nuisance protects an occupier from unreasonable interference with certain legally recognised aspects or incidents of use and enjoyment of the land ( Victoria Park Racing v Taylor )
b. In order to be an actionable nuisance, an interference with comfort and convenience must be substantial ( Munro at [334])
c. General factors:
i. Privacy
1. No legal right to privacy ( Victoria Park Racing v Taylor ) 2. No legal right not to be overlooked by neighbouring occupiers
( Victoria Park Racing v Taylor )
3. Is the act sufficiently close to “watching or besetting”? (e.g illumination and surveillance) ( Raciti v Hughes )
a. Yes → May amount to an unreasonable interference b. No → Will not amount to an unreasonable interference 4. Is photography sufficient to amount to nuisance?
a. No → As a general rule, what one can see, one can photograph without it being actionable ( Raciti v Hughes )
i. Has there been a deliberate attempt to snoop on the privacy of a neighbour and to record that on video tape?
1. Yes → Likely to amount to nuisance as it is close to “watching or besetting ( Raciti v Hughes )