Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:54:47 +1000

From: Harold Luntz

Subject: Nuisance Case

Jason,

As I think Andrew's response indicates, you haven't told us who you envisage as the intended defendant. Nor have you said whether you are concerned with a public or private nuisance. But if you want a case with factual similarities, see Animal Liberation (Vic) Inc v Gasser [1991] 1 VR 51 (FC), where an injunction was granted against the demonstrators on the basis of the watching and besetting nuisance cases. There is also Australian authority for private nuisance not necessarily emanating from the defendant's premises, eg someone making phone calls to the plaintiff in the middle of the night from a public telephone box.

There are too many issues I want to take up in the vicarious liability debate for me to give an answer on that front now. There are some points that correspondents have made with which I agree, whereas others seem to me to be misconceived. I might wait for the flow of emails to settle down a little. I'd like to see your paper some time, though just at present I've too many other things to do to read a long paper.

Harold.

At 09:58 AM 13/10/2004 -0400, Jason Neyers wrote:

Dear Colleagues:

Has anybody ever come across a nuisance case where the alleged nuisance was not something emanating from the defendant's land but rather the noise/conduct of third parties who were protesting against the use of the defendant's land (such as animal rights activists and a testing facility)?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>