Examination Timing: 00H00M37S
Michael became irritated by his next-door neighbour, Laura, who gives music and singing lessons until 11pm at night. To get his revenge, he maliciously blew whistles, shrieked, and knocked on trays during Laura's music lessons. Laura now wishes to put a stop to Michael's disruptive behaviour because it is affecting her family life and might damage her business.
Which remedy would you advise her to use?
< 上一页
Your selected option: C
下一页 >
Laura should seek an injunction to restrain Michael's behaviour. The malice in Michael's actions makes his conduct unreasonable and constitutes a nuisance. In Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch D 316, it was held that an injunction is the appropriate remedy to prevent ongoing disruptive behaviour that constitutes a nuisance. The court in this case found that the defendant's deliberate and malicious actions to disrupt his neighbour's music lessons were unreasonable, justifying the issuance of an injunction.
Key Point: The Christie v Davey case demonstrates that malicious and disruptive behaviour by a neighbour can be restrained by an injunction. The court will consider the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct and the impact on the claimant's enjoyment of their property. Injunctions are a key remedy in nuisance cases to prevent ongoing or future harm.
收集问题
用户内容
