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

Law And Contract Resit - Case Study ExampleIn this case four issues arise and these are resound and vibrations disturbing Pubs customer, Bloggs & Co Builders used the student gondola park to the jib of a crane, construction vehicles are constantly blocking the entrance of Public category owner and they work continues on site Saturday and Sunday mornings as a result the pub passenger car was disturbed.Winfield and Jolowicz defence secret iniquity as an unlawful interference with a persons use or frolic of land, or some skilful over, or in connection, with it. This principle is neatly encapsulated in the words of original W regenerate in Sedleigh-Denfield v Callaghan1, where he verbalize 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 others land is permi ssible.The test is iodin of reasonable user balancing the interest group of defendants to use their land as legally permitted against the conflicting interest of claimants to have kinda enjoyment of their land. It is a not a test of reasonable care. In Rapier v capital of the United Kingdom Tramways Co2 held that it is no defence to prove that the defendant had taken all reasonable care to forestall the nuisance occurring. The Court will look at the result of defendants 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 neighbours enjoyment of his land. In assign 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 notwithstanding excludes mere permite. 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 claimants premises are situated is a snatch 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 order 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 procession of smoke from a factory would not be considere d a nuisance in an industrial estate, but would be likely to be found to be a nuisance in a more often than not residential area. In Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co. Ltd7 held that a good example is the transformation of the capital of the United Kingdom 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 equal by itself to change the nature of the locality, although this may occur as a matter of fact ascribable to investment in the area. The CA took the view in Wheeler v JJ Saunder Ltd8