LEGAL FRAMEWORKS IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages In this regard, a private nuisance refers to the violation of another person’s quite enjoyment of his/her property while public nuisance is simply any interference with the safety, health, convenience and peace of the members of public. It is however worth noting that according to the British laws, an act of nuisance or trespass can only be dealt with through the civil legal routes such as suing the offending party and can not amount to prosecution. The UK statutes dealing with both private and public nuisances are require evidence of justifiable proof that the nuisances are unreasonable and are affecting the rights of either the private homeowners or the ordinary citizens to enjoy their privileges. This is because both offences are considered as civil offences rather than criminal offences. This paper uses the case of David’s Family and Harrington & Nephew limited to highlight the cases of private nuisance, public nuisance and trespass in their relationship as well as discuss the potential remedies and defences that both parties may have under the British laws. Private nuisance There are a number of events in the scenario between David’s Family and Harrington & Nephew limited (Factory) that may constitute private nuisances. For example various factory operations such as the movement of Wagons are causing unreasonable noise that is affecting David and his family to lose their sleep during the night. On the other hand, the death of Rose tree belonging to Mr. and Mrs. David is directly as a result of the dust coming from the Harrington & Nephew Limited factory premises. According to most of the UK statutes regarding the definitions of private nuisance, all these cases are considered private nuisances to David’s family because they have cause interference with their right to enjoy their property by invading their private lives with undesirable noise and dust. On the other hand, If David’s family decides to sue the factory belonging to Harrington & Nephew Limited for the private nuisance that their operations have caused to their family lives and property, the relevant local authorities handling the case will have to decide whether the interference by the factory operations have resulted in unreasonable damage to property. In this context, any evidence of physical damage such as the death of the Rose plant will make it easier to justify their case against the factory1. With regard to whether the factory operations have interfered with the rights of David’s family to quite enjoyment of their property, the claimant will be required to prove the cases of substantial and unreasonable interference with his family’s enjoyment. For example the fact that David and his family members are suffering from a continual loss of sleep due to the excessive noise from the factory can be used by the claimant to justify that the interference by the factory is unreasonable. The law will however balance between the right of the defendant (Harrington & Nephew Limited) to use their property and the right of David’s family (Claimant) not to be unreasonably inconvenienced. It is also worth noting that not all interference are considered to be nuisances according to the UK laws and sometimes individuals may be required to tolerate a given degree of ...Download file to see next pagesRead More