Eduqas A-Level Law A150QS
Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Civil Process
The Criminal Process
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice and Funding
Contract: Rules and Theory of Contract LawContract
Contract: Essential Requirements and FormationContract
Contract: Express and Implied TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and Economic DuressContract
Contract: Discharge of ContractContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Tort: Rules and Theory of Tort LawTort
Tort: NegligenceTort
Tort: Occupiers' LiabilityTort
Tort: Torts Connected to LandTort
Tort: Vicarious LiabilityTort
Tort: Defences and RemediesTort
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Capacity DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Necessity Defences and Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection of Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Human Rights: Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: Restrictions on Convention RightsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: ReformHuman rights
Tort: Torts Connected to Land
Abnormal sensitivity and the effect of malice
- 3 things to know
- Components 2 and 3
Overview
Robinson v Kilvert and McKinnon Industries on the unusually delicate claimant, how Network Rail v Morris reframed the rule as foreseeability, and why malice can make an otherwise lawful use unreasonable.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
What is the rule about abnormal sensitivity in private nuisance?
What did Robinson v Kilvert (1889) decide?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
What is the rule about abnormal sensitivity in private nuisance?
Model answer
A claimant cannot complain of an interference that troubles only an unusually sensitive use of land. The test asks whether an ordinary occupier would have been affected.
- 2
What did Robinson v Kilvert (1889) decide?
Model answer
Heat from the defendant's cellar damaged exceptionally delicate brown paper stored on the floor above. The court held there was no nuisance, because ordinary paper would not have been harmed.
- 3
What did McKinnon Industries v Walker [1951] decide?
Model answer
Fumes from a factory damaged the claimant's ordinary plants and also his delicate orchids. The court held that once a nuisance is established the claimant recovers for the sensitive use as well.
- 4
How has the sensitivity rule been reframed in modern cases?
Model answer
Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris [2004] treated abnormal sensitivity as an aspect of foreseeability. The question is whether damage of that kind to that claimant was reasonably foreseeable.
- 5
What were the facts of Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris [2004]?
Model answer
Railway signalling equipment caused electromagnetic interference with electric guitars at a nearby recording studio. The Court of Appeal held there was no nuisance, because such interference was not reasonably foreseeable.
- 6
What effect does malice have on a nuisance claim?
Model answer
Malice can turn otherwise reasonable conduct into an unreasonable user of land. A deliberate intention to annoy a neighbour weighs heavily against the defendant.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Tort: Torts Connected to Land, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.