Page 934 - SUBSEC October 2017_Neat

02231020/CAPE/SPEC 2017

2

CAPE LAW UNIT 2
PAPER 02

SECTION A
MODULE 1 - LAW OF TORT

Key and Mark Scheme

Question 1

Specific Objective: 5

(a) Candidates are expected to discuss the following:

(i) The tort is nuisance as Chingtung Restaurant is causing
an unreasonable interference of John and his mother’s use
or enjoyment of the house due to the noise from the band
playing at nights.

1 mark for response
2 marks for clear explanation
1 mark for partial explanation [3 marks]

(ii) John — landowner/tenant/occupier can sue.
Since nuisance is concerned with a person’s use or
enjoyment of land only persons with an interest in land
can sue. In this case John is the person who bought the
land, therefore he is the owner and has interest so he can
sue.
Cases
Malone v. Laskey (1907)
Hunter v. Canary Wharf (1995)
Sheppard v. Griffith (1973)

1 mark for identifying John
1 mark for reason
1 mark for the case
[3 marks]

(a) The parties that can be sued
Any person who creates a nuisance can be sued regardless of
whether that person owns or occupies the land from which the
nuisance comes — Southport Corporation
(i) Chingtung Restaurant can be sued as owner.
 The occupier of the land where the nuisance exists is
liable when he creates the nuisance. In this case,
Chintung Restaurant can be sued.
Chingtung Restaurant can be sued as occupier.
 The occupier may also be vicariously liable where his
employee creates a nuisance in the course of
employment. In this case, the band is the employee
(contracted) of Chingtung Restaurant so Chingtung is
vicariously responsible for its action.