VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:59:28 01/15/03 Wed
Author: 何焯華條賓周+歡迎炸佢: jameslam@hkpro.com.hk
Subject: 淨屌何焯華條仆街呢+歡迎炸佢: nancychow@hkpro.com.hk
In reply to: 何焯華條賓周+歡迎炸佢: jameslam@hkpro.com.hk 's message, "淨屌何焯華條仆街呢+歡迎炸佢: nancychow@hkpro.com.hk" on 08:40:39 01/15/03 Wed

Case Law:
Sturges v Bridgman(1879)
In this case the plaintiff was a physician whose use of his consulting room at the foot of his garden was interfered with by noise from the defendant's machinery which he used in his business of confectioner. The court found that the interference was unreasonable in view of the fact that the area was one in which numerous medical practitioners had their consulting rooms.

Gillingham BC v Medway(Chatham) Dock(1993)
It was found that the character of a neigbourhood had been changed by a planning permission which had been to convert a naval dock-yard into a commercial port. A public nuisance could not be established in relation to the use of the docks by heavy goods vehicles in the evenings and during the night,since only one access to the port existed through a residential district. Planning permission does not by itself excuse a nuisance.

Leakey v National Trust where two houseowners lived near the foot of a historic mound known as Burrow Mump in Someret. Over the year soil and rubble had fallen from the mound and the defendant, who was responible for its upkeep,knew of potential instability that might result inlarger falls. After a substantial fall proceedings were brough. An interlocutory injunction was granted ording the defendant to carry out protection works and at trial modest damages were awarded. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment stating that, while the action was properly brought in nuisance rather than negligenance, the distinction was of no practical importance. The defendant's duty was limited to doing what was reasonable.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-7
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.