Examples of Tort Cases Related to Real Property in the UK - Essay Example

? The Owners of Land can Suffer Harm and Tort Serves to Rectify the Situation. Is this True with Regard to Real Property? ID Number Course Title & Code Instructor’s Name Date Total Number of Words: 2,500 Introduction The English tort law is commonly used to address legal issues related to wrong doings that can lead to “injury”. In most cases, civil actions related to tort are mostly used by one person against another. In search for legal actions, the affected parties may file legal cases to take and address the issue in front of a judge. Torts related to land usually serves as a legal protection for landowners1. However, in mordern days, most of the tort cases related to land property are highly subject to a lot of other considerations such as the public interests and distance to the exact location of the land owner’s property among others. In response to the continuously changing reforms within the English legal system, commercial property lawyers should consider all other statutory guidelines which can directly affect the judges’ final decision when it comes to torts related to land property. For example, when dealing with cases related to “aggravated trespass in buildings”, commercial property lawyers should consider the guidelines stipulated under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 20032. There are cases wherein the land owners can suffer from harm. In line with this, the main purpose of this study is to determine whether or not Tort law in UK can serve as a solution to situations wherein the land owners are suffering from harm. As a common knowledge, the scope of the English tort law is too broad. Therefore, in relation to different kind of tort law, this study will make use of several past and current cases to examine the extend in which tort law can rectify situations related to real property. Examples of Tort Cases Related to Real Property Nuisance is legally defined as “a wrongful interference with the plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of property”3. Unlike in the case of trespassing, nuisance is pertaining to an indirect act of invading or entering the property of another person whether it be an object or not4. Under the English tort law, the land owners can sue another party that causes direct or indirect damages to the property, nuisances, or negligence. For instance, in the case of Miller v Jackson5, Mr. and Mrs. Miller (the plaintiffs) legally sued the chairman of a cricket club in County Durham (defendant) for nuisance and negligence6. Due to close geographical situation with the club (approax. 100 feet), there were instances wherein the cricket balls could hit the Miller’s property causing minor damages not only to the house paint but also to their brickworks and roof tiles7, 8, 9. Furthermore, the Millers were also at risk of physical injury each time there is a cricket game10. To address the problem, the club took some measures by putting up a fence and boundary walls. It even came to a point wherein the club offered the Millers ?400 for the minor property damages and promised them that the club would invest in putting up a net to protect the Millers’ garden. Since the Millers were not contented with the said arrangement, the couple filed a case against the club. After hearing the case, Reeve J. decded that the club should pay the Millers the amount of ?150 for the damages, inconvenience, and invasion of Millers’ property11. After the plaintiffs appealed the case, both Geoffrey Lane LJ and Cumming-Bruce LJ12 supported the Millers’ side explaining that the situation can cause serious nuisance to the couple and each time the cricket ball would cross-over the Millers’ fence and cause damges to the Millers’ property makes the club guilty of negligence13, 14, 15. Because of the need to balance the public interests (i.e. the people who were accustomed in playing the crickets in that area for the past 70 years) with the interest of the property owner close within the said jurisdiction16, 17, 18, 19, Lord Denning decided that the club should pay the Millers the amount of ?400 to pay any past damages to their personal property and that the club will be held legally liable for any future harm caused by the cricket game20, 21. Trespass is legally defined as “unauthorized entry upon the land or premises of another or a wrongful interference with the possession of someone’s real or personal property”22. It means that the mere act of leaning on a neighbour’s wall23 or a ladder against a wall 24, in the absence of permission from the property owner, is already considered as direct interference. In UK, the act of intentionally trespassing the land of another person is considered as a civil offense and is often classified as a tort case25, 26, 27. According to Harlow, the mere act of intentionally entering another person’s land is actionable even without any signs of damages28. Even though no physical damage was done to the real estate, Okrent explained that “trespass law presumes that injury has happened simply because the tortfeasor has interfered with the land owner’s use of the realty”29. For this reason, it is common for farmers to protect their land property against the stag hunters30. Even though affected individuals can file cases related to trespassing, there is a clear limitation with regards to the extent in which the claimant could win the legal issue on trespassing as a tort case. In the case of Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Limited31, the defendant was legally sued by the plaintiff for takng an aerial photos of the defendant’s house for commercial purposes. In this case, the judge did not accept the idea that the defendant violated the concept of trespassing due to the fact that the defendant took some photographs via air32, 33. Another good example of a case wherein trespassing to a land can be void is valid if there is a defence for the necessity to trespass the land of another person, such as in the case wherein the defendant’s life or property is in danger, and that there were no negligence seen on the part of the defendant34. Under the English law, the term “defence of necessity” is pertaining to rare situations wherein there is a strong need for a person to break the law. Although defence of necessity can be used in defending tort cases, it is very seldom for the court to accept defence of necessity as an excuse for violating the law. For example, in the case of Righby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire35, a dangerous psychopath forcefully entered and stayed inside a building after spreading out some inflammable powder on the floor. With the purpose of forcefully getting the psychopath out of the building, a police office threw a CS gas canister inside the building. As a result, the building went on fire. Inside the court, the police officer claimed that there was a necessity for him to throw in the CS gas canister in order to get the psychopath out of the building. Even though police officers have the duty to maintain peace and order within our society, this group of professionals “do not have any general immunity against tort”36, 37. The mere fact that the police officer did not make it a point to prepare some fire-fighting equipment with them before they threw in the CS gas canister, the court decided that there was a negligence on the part of the police officer which caused serious damages to the property of the land owner. For this reason, the police officer was obliged to pay for the property damages caused by his own negligence38, 39. The case of Southwark London Borough Council v Williams40, 41, 42 is another good example wherein the defendants were claiming for a reason of necessity. Because of the strong need for a housing accommodation, the defendants had purposely entered a vacant house that was owned by the plaintiff. Even though the defendants were claiming for the defence of necessity, Lord Denning MR contested if all homeless people will be legally allowed to make use of “necessity” as a defence for trespassing a private property; then the main purpose of tort law on land properties will become useless and ineffective. It simply means that being homelessness is not a legal excuse for a person to invade the land property of another person43. As a common knowledge, trespassing is one of classifications of tort law. Considering the arguments made by the Lord Denning, the defendants in this case were found guilty of trespassing. Conclusion It is a common misconception that tort cases is limited to negligence causing harm or damages to the real property. Based on the past and current cases earlier, legal issues related to nuisance, direct or indirect interference to a person’s enjoyment of their real property, and damages to another person’s property are also included under tort law44, 45, 46. With regards to the question on whether or not the land owners who has suffered from harm can use tort to rectify the situation related to real property, the answer is “yes but it is highly dependent on the nature of the case”. Basically, when it comes to the English tort law, the “nature of the plaintiff’s interest” is given more importance as compared to the “nature of defendant’s conduct”47. It simply means that the personal interests of the land owners are given more importance as compared to that of the defendant’s. This clearly explain why the plaintiffs in tort cases like Miller v Jackson48, Righby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire49, Southwark London Borough Council v Williams50, 51, 52 were more on the advantageous side as compared to the defendants. Specifically the case of Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Limited53 is unique. Due to the argument that the act of takng serveral aerial photos of the defendant’s house is hundreds of miles away from the plaintiff’s house, the court dcided that trespassing in this case is not valid54. In general, the common law of tort does not only provide remedies to the affected owners but also to the affected tenants55. For this reason, even though the use of tort law can protect the land owners from unknown invaders and tenants who are overstaying in the land owner’s property, the tort law can also be used to protect the land owner’s tenants from being harassed by the land owners especially during the entire period of the agreed date of tenancy. For example, when leasing a property, it is the duty and obligation of the land owners to clearly “state that possession order for property is required 'after a date specified in the notice, being the last day of a period of a tenancy'. In the case of Notting Hill Housing Trust v Roomus56, the tenant claimed that the standard form section 21 notice that was issued to him is not valid due to the fact that the phrase “at the end of the period of your tenancy” was written in the form and that section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 requires "that the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant a notice in writing stating that, after a date specified in the notice, being the last day of a period of the tenancy and not earlier than two months after the date the notice was given, possession of the dwelling-house is required by virtue of this section; …". In this case, the court had to consider the interests of both parties (the landlord and the tenant) by making it clear to the tenant that the phrase “at the end of the period of your tenancy” means that they can possess the land owner’s property until 12 midnight of the last day of their agreed tenancy period. With regards to tort cases related to nuisance, it is actually the duty of the plaintiff to prove to the court that the defendant has made a reasonable direct or indirect interference in their enjoyment of property and that damages were made on the part of the plaintiffs. Under the tort law on real property, being “reasonable” is very important in winning the case. The Hunter v Canary Wharf57 is a good example of tort case related to private nuisance. Under this case, the plaintiff was complaining that the on-going contruction project of Canary Wharf is causing problems to their television signal. As explained by Lord Lloyd, there are only three (3) limited instances which can be legally considered under the case of private nuisance. First of all, there should be an actual intrusion of another person’s real property. The second requirement is that there should be a direct physical damages done to the other person’s real property. The third requirement requires either direct or indirect interference to another peron’s real property58. Upon analysing the case, it is clear that the indirect interference to the plaintiff’s television signal does not violate any of these three (3) major requirements. For this reason, the court decided that the act of interfering the TV reception is not a reasonable sign of nuisance. The issue on sensitivity to the sources of nuisance is another factor that can affect the court’s decision when it comes to property tort law. In the case of McKinnon Industries v Walker59, the plaintiff filed a legal case against the defendant based on the ground that the manufacturing company was releasing some sulphur dioxide gas and fumes that has caused damaged to the plaintiff’s orchids. After several trials and court hearings, the court decided that the plaintiff has the right to enjoy living peacefully in his own property and the right to protect his preferred activities within his property area. In the case of Robinson v Kilvert60, the plaintiff was renting the ground floor of the defendant’s property. In the same property area, the defendant was using a heating system to make paper boxes as his business. The plaintiff complained that the defendant has caused him nuisance by making his territory feel hot and dry. Under this particular case, the court decided that the plaintiff’s sensitivity to heat will never be considered as nuisance. Upon analysing all of the case examples presented in this study, it seems that the court is continuously exerting effort to balance potential conflicts which may arise between the plaintiff’s right to enjoy their property with the defendant’s right to use their property. Even though most of the indirect nuisances such as the presence of smoke, bad smells, irritable noice, the smell of gas or petrol, etc. are caused by current affairs, the plaintiffs can still win tort cases related to indirect nuisance provided that they can prove that their legal complaints had cased serious physical damage on their part. In this case, the term “damage” could mean not only a serious inconvenience or unusual discomfort but also pertain to the risk of damage to real property. References Best, A. and Barnes, D., Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes, and Problems. (Aspen Publishers 2007). Cane, P., The Anatomy of Tort Law. (Hart Publishing 1997). Falconer, J., The Irish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal, Volume 112. (1979) Fulbrook, J., Outdoor Activities, Negligence And the Law. (Ashgate Publishing Ltd 2005). Gordley, J. and von Mehren, A., An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Private Law: Readings, Cases, Materials. (Cambridge University Press 2006). Gray, K. and Gray, S., Land Law. (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2007). Green, D., Torts Law Q&A 2005-2006. (6th edn, Cavendish Publishing Ltd 2005). Harlow, C., Harlow Understand Tort Law. (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd 2005). Harpwood, V., Modern Tort Law. (7th edn, Routledge-Cavendish 2009). Harpwood, V., Principles of Tort Law. (Cavendish Publishing 2000). Okrent, C., Torts and Personal Injury Law. (Delmar Cengage Learning 2010). Rivlin, G., Understanding the Law. (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2012). Rossini, C., English As a Legal Language. (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 1998). Samuel, G., Sourcebook on Obligations & Remedies. (2nd edn, Cavendish Publishing 2000). Steele, J., Tort Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. (Oxford University Press 2007). The Guardian. ‘Get off my land... If you're having issues protecting your property from intrusions, don't go in all guns blazing, says Alan Wilson. You could well find yourself under scrutiny’ (The Guardian, 8 June 2007) accessed 5 January 2013 The Law Society Gazette, ‘Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire’ (The Law Society Gazette, 8 January 1986) accessed 5 January 2013 Read More