levo

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.

Your recallNot started
Numbers

What did Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] decide?

Key term

What is the rule about abnormal sensitivity in private nuisance?

Key term

What did Robinson v Kilvert (1889) decide?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

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.