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 ring and vibrations disturbing Pubs customer, Bloggs & Co Builders used the student car park to the jib of a crane, construction vehicles are constantly blocking the entrance of Public field owner and they work continues on site Saturday and Sunday mornings as a result the pub manager was disturbed.Winfield and Jolowicz defence secret crime as an nefarious interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land, or some honorable over, or in connection, with it. This principle is neatly encapsulated in the words of entitle Wright in Sedleigh-Denfield v Callaghan1, where he said 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 permissible.The running game is oneness of reasonable user balancing the beguile of defendants to use their land as legally permitted against the conflicting interest of claimants to withdraw quite enjoyment of their land. It is a not a test of reasonable care. In Rapier v London Tramways Co2 held that it is no defence to prove that the defendant had taken all reasonable care to retard the nuisance followring. 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 order 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 but excludes mere licensee. So from the fact of the question it can be said pub owner and owners of public house and Birmingham City Un iversity 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 second 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 point 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 emission of smoke from a factory would not be considered a nuisance in an industrial estate, but would be likely to be f ound 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 London docklands from an industrial area to a now scoop 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 enough by itself to change the nature of the locality, although this may occur as a matter of fact due to investment in the area. The CA took the view in Wheeler v JJ Saunder Ltd8