Page 936 - SUBSEC October 2017_Neat

02231020/CAPE/SPEC 2017

4

to a reasonable standard of conduct not to some unusually
high standard which the plaintiff seeks to impose.

 Character of the neighbourhood
The nature of the neighbourhood where the acts complained
of have occurred may be taken into account in cases of
interference with enjoyment of land Bamford v. Turnley,
but not in cases of physical injury to property St. Helen’s
Smelting Co. v. Tipping. ‘What would be a nuisance in
Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’
Sturges v. Bridgman.

 The utility of the defendant’s conduct
In general, the court will not rule in favour of the
defendant merely because he shows that his conduct was
beneficial or useful to the community for that would compel
the plaintiff to bear the burden alone of an activity from
which many others will benefit – Adams v. Ursell.

 The Defendant’s malice
Malice will refute reasonableness – Christie v. Davey.
Where the defendant carried on his activity with the sole
or main purpose of causing harm or annoyance to the
plaintiff this is a factor that will be taken into account
in deciding whether his conduct is reasonable.
Malice here means ‘spite’, ‘ill-will’ or ‘evil motive’
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v. Emmett.
Cases
Walter v. Selfe
Vanderpant v. Mayfair Hotel Co. Ltd
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v. Spicer Bros. Ltd
Harrison v. Southwark & Vauxhall Water Co.
Bolton v. Stone
Midwood v. Mayor of Manchester
Robinson v. Kilvert

Clear explanation of any three relevant factors 2 marks each
[6 marks]
Weak explanation 1 mark each.

Any two cases/examples clearly explained 2 marks each [4 marks]
Application and conclusion [2 marks]
Coherence [3 marks]

[15 marks]

Total 25 marks