Nuisance and Tresspass Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Nuisance and Tresspass Law - Essay Example What is important in the determination of private nuisance is the element of infringing the right of enjoyment of property. In nuisance, the interference must be indirect and may result into damages. Some of the nuisance cause here include dust, noise, lose of sleep, destruction of rose and interference with having rest in the family’s garden. Where nuisance has resulted into damages, proof will be easier for the plaintiff (Gearty, 1989). David’s quiet right of enjoyment of his property has been infringed by Advise Harrington & Nephew Ltd. In lodging a case against the company, David will have the obligation f proving that there was unreasonable interference in the enjoyment f his rights on his land. Because the land existing was bought by David and David occupied the same piece of land, he has the right to claim that the actions of the company interfered with his rights on the land. For private nuisance to be acceptable there must be an element of continuity (Pollock, n.d). A onetime interference with a neighbour does not constitute a nuisance. In this case, the company continued with their operation even during the night making their actions unreasonable. The noise from the company made David and his family fail to sleep at night. The court’s decision will therefore be similar to that of De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd. v Spicer Brothers Ltd. ... Moreover, the nature of the neighbourhood will be relevant when coming up with the verdict. In this case, it is David who bought the land next to the company. However, this argument will be impotent in this case because of the nature of damage. Location is only considered to the limit of enjoyment of occupation and not injury to property (Darbyshire, 2010). Because the Rose that was a gift during the family’s wedding die, the nuisance caused injury to property. The chemical emissions from the company further damaged, Wally’s car that was parked outside the house. The case of Esson provides a precedent of the same. In addition, David was not an abnormal claimant as the noise, dust or smell would affect the enjoyment of rights of any normal person. The claimant would therefore succeed in this respect and the court could move ahead to issue an injunction. This will therefore not be relevant n this case. Defendant’s lack of care Harrington & Nephew Ltd failed to care about their neighbours during the production period. The company ought to have taken measures to reduce the impact of dust, noise and chemicals to their neighbours. In a similar case of Andrae V Selfridge (1938) the claimant who was a hotel owner recovered damage from the defendant who caused unnecessary noise and damage during demolition. Harrington & Nephew ltd could claim the following to reduce their liability for nuisance to David. Consent; the defendant can claim that the consent claimant was granted before the commission of the tortuous action. In this case, David’s consent was not sought making this defence irrelevant. Secondly, the defendant can claim that the action being complained about