Tresspass/Nuisance - Essay Example

Identify this and explain the procedure that the defendant should or could take to help rectify the situation? Planning control ensures that constructions are constructed in line with laid rules and regulations. It basically ensures safety of buildings and constructed structures and sites. From the case study, planning control breach has occurred. This is during the erection of scaffolding by the defendant. According to planning control, neighbours ought to inform or consult each other in case the other would like to construct a structure that might inconvenience the other in any way, for instance tall buildings among others.

This is to ensure that the structures in respective areas are in line with laid plans of the engineers in charge of planning. The defendant ought to consult the plaintiff before commencing erection of the scaffolding. The scaffolding erected trespassed into air space of the plaintiff’s property (Desty and Rich 41). Question 2: Name the authority that would have instructed the defendant that they are responsible to pay for damages? The authority responsible in instructing the defendant on payment of damages to the plaintiff is the attorney general.

The attorney general helps the plaintiff in recovering damages caused by defendants by asking them to pay. This direction from the attorney general only occurs after the damages caused by the defendant are enormous. In this case the plaintiff’s case did not depict any enormous damages from the defendant to warrantee her payment. Erection of scaffolding, a mistake made by the defendant did not have any tangible loses to the plaintiff (Cooke and Williams 187). Question 3: What are the implications of trespass, and how would this occur Trespass or nuisance may occur in different ways depending on the affected population, for example, it can be public or private.

Public trespass directly affects the general public while private nuisance affects a specific group of people. There are several implications of trespass and they occur in different ways too (Kaeuper 112). Question 4: At all times did the defendant act in a reasonable manner? The defendant did not have control over noise that came from construction for this was beyond his control therefore trying to convince the plaintiff that noise was not a form of trespass held some water. However, there are some instances when the defendant did not act in a reasonable manner.

According to planning control rules any individual who is certain that his construction will lead to inconveniences to his neighbour in any way to provide a public notice before the inconvenience. The defendant did bother informing the plaintiff about erection of scaffolding a factor he knew pretty well that would cause complications to his project (Cooke and Williams 317). The defendant did not take plaintiff concerns seriously stating that he was only being petty and that his main aim to frustrate him.

In this case the defendant was being unreasonable for not allowing room for discussion between him and the plaintiff. Defendant was only interested in fulfilling his interests and not caring about the interests of the plaintiff. If only he would have allowed room for discussion, an agreement between them would have been realised to enhance smooth operation (Ganim 67). Question 5: Why were monies not awarded to the plaintiff in respect of their complaint about the noise, and if this