18. Trespass to land and nuisance

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 535-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Actual Damage

This chapter examines torts of trespass to land and nuisance. Trespass to land is concerned with direct harm, and the tort’s primary importance is the protection of property rights. Harm in this context does not necessarily mean actual damage to the land concerned. The harm lies in the fact that land owned by one party has been unjustifiably interfered with by another. Private nuisance deals with indirect and unreasonable interferences to land, including what might be called consequential interferences resulting from a direct action. Private nuisance regulates relationships and conflicts between neighbours, defining their mutual rights and obligations with respect to land use. Many aspects of the law of nuisance, including determining whether an injunction or damages is the appropriate remedy, have recently been clarified by the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence [2014].

18. Trespass to land and nuisance

2021 ◽  
pp. 537-582
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Actual Damage

This chapter examines torts of trespass to land and nuisance. Trespass to land is concerned with direct harm, and the tort’s primary importance is the protection of property rights. Harm in this context does not necessarily mean actual damage to the land concerned. The harm lies in the fact that land owned by one party has been unjustifiably interfered with by another. Private nuisance deals with indirect and unreasonable interferences to land, including what might be called consequential interferences resulting from a direct action. Private nuisance regulates relationships and conflicts between neighbours, defining their mutual rights and obligations with respect to land use. Many aspects of the law of nuisance, including determining whether an injunction or damages is the appropriate remedy, were clarified by the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence [2014].

18. Trespass to land and nuisance

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Actual Damage

This chapter examines torts of trespass to land and nuisance. Trespass to land is concerned with direct harm, and the tort’s primary importance is the protection of property rights. Harm in this context does not necessarily mean actual damage to the land concerned. The harm lies in the fact that land owned by one party has been unjustifiably interfered with by another. Private nuisance deals with indirect and unreasonable interferences to land, including what might be called consequential interferences resulting from a direct action. Private nuisance regulates relationships and conflicts between neighbours, defining their mutual rights and obligations with respect to land use. Many aspects of the law of nuisance, including determining whether an injunction or damages is the appropriate remedy, have recently been clarified by the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence.

scholarly journals Be careful what you promise: Proprietary estoppel in Cowper-Smith v Morgan

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Canadian Experience ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Proprietary estoppel provides one of equity’s most powerful remedies. Estoppel is an equitable doctrine which arises when one party acts on the reliance of the promise of another. The promise and corresponding reliance creates a quasi-contract with reliance acting as an alternative to the consideration usually required in contracts. Proprietary estoppel is distinct from other equitable estoppels in that a proprietary estoppel can act as a ‘sword’ and form the basis of a cause of action. If all of the parts of proprietary estoppel are made out, a court can modify or create property rights to satisfy the equity.With regard to the Canadian experience, the Court of Appeal for Ontario recently noted that proprietary estoppel has received “somewhat uneven treatment in Canada.” It is within this context that the Court of Appeal for British Columbia split on the proper scope for the Supreme Court of Canada. In Cowper-Smith v Morgan, the Supreme Court of Canada has both clarified the test for — and arguably expanded the scope of — proprietary estoppel in the context of promises exchanged between children over their mother’s care during her lifetime. The fact that a party lacks an interest in the disputed property at the time of the promise does not negate the obligation of fulfilling the promise. Instead, when the party responsible for the expectation has or acquires sufficient interest in the property, proprietary estoppel will attach to that interest and protect the equity. This article will discuss the law of proprietary estoppel in other jurisdictions and how the Supreme Court of Canada has infused this remedy with greater flexibility to satisfy the equity.

scholarly journals Establishment by virtue of the law of land easement with the content corresponding to transmission easement in the light of the resolution of the Supreme Court of June 5, 2018, in case III CZP 50/17

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 227-236
Author(s):  
Anna Maria Barańska
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Owned Company

The subject of this article is the resolution of the enlarged composition of the Supreme Court of June 5, 2018, which resolves the issue of acquiring by land easement with the content corresponding to transmission easement together with the acquisition by a state-owned company of transmission facilities developed on State Treasury properties. As a result of granting property rights to state-owned companies of state property in the early 1990s, the ownership of the transmission infrastructure and the property on which they were situated were separated.In the judicature, divergent concepts emerged regarding the solution of the issue of  further use of this land by transmission companies. According to the first one, the transfer of property rights was accompanied by the creation by law of a land easement with the content corresponding to a transmission easement. On the other hand, according to the second concept, obtaining a legal title for further use of the property was possible only through contractual acquisition or prescription of transmission easement. Powstanie z mocy prawa służebności gruntowej o treści odpowiadającej służebności przesyłu w świetle uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 5 czerwca 2018 roku, sygn. akt III CZP 50/17 Tematem artykułu jest uchwała powiększonego składu Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 5 czerwca 2018 roku, która rozstrzyga kwestię nabycia z mocy prawa służebności gruntowej o treści odpowiadającej służebności przesyłu wraz z nabyciem przez przedsiębiorstwo państwowe własności urządzeń przesyłowych posadowionych na nieruchomościach Skarbu Państwa. W wyniku uwłaszczenia mienia państwowego na początku lat dziewięćdziesiątych ubiegłego wieku doszło do rozdzielenia własności infrastruktury przesyłowej oraz nieruchomości, na której były one posadowione. W judykaturze pojawiły się rozbieżne koncepcje odnośnie do rozwiązania kwestii dalszego korzystania przez przedsiębiorstwa przesyłowe z tych gruntów. Zgodnie z pierwszą z nich przeniesieniu prawa własności towarzyszyło powstanie z mocy prawa służebności gruntowej o treści odpowiadającej służebności przesyłu. Na podstawie drugiej — uzyskanie tytułu prawnego do dalszego korzystania z nieruchomości było możliwe wyłącznie w drodze umownego nabycia albo zasiedzenia służebności przesyłu.

scholarly journals Freedom of speech issues in Peach v Toohey and a hypothetical variant of that case

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-152
Author(s):  
Patrick Keyzer
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
High Court Of Australia

The purpose of this article is to consider the tensions within Australian free speech jurisprudence based on a hypothetical variant of the facts of the decision of the Supreme Court of the Northen Territory in Peach v Toohey. In particular, this article briefly explores the competing legal interests  that operate when journalists seek access to restricted areas, in this case aborginal land, in the course of an investigation. After considering the case and the issues it raises the author develops a hypothetical that draws out some of the deeper tensions in this area of the law. The article concludes with proposals for new apporoaches to the test developed by the High Court of Australia in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation for the balancing of freedom to discuss political and governmental affairs—including the public right to know — against other legitimate objectives such as the maintence of property rights and the privacy interests that can be associated with propety rights. 

PERSINGGUNGAN KEWENANGAN MENGADILI PENYALAHGUNAAN DISKRESI ANTARA PENGADILAN TUN DAN PENGADILAN TIPIKOR / INTERCEPTION OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY OF DISCRETION ABUSE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION COURT AND CORRUPTION COURTS

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Finance ◽  
The Law ◽  
To Receive

Diskresi sebagai wewenang bebas, keberadaannya rentan akan disalahgunakan. Penyalahgunaan diskresi yang berimplikasi merugikan keuangan negara dapat dituntutkan pertanggungjawabannya secara hukum administrasi maupun hukum pidana. Mengingat selama ini peraturan perundang-undangan tentang pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi tidak merumuskan secara rinci yang dimaksudkan unsur menyalahgunakan kewenangan maka para hakim menggunakan konsep penyalahgunaan wewenang dari hukum administrasi. Problema muncul saat diberlakukannya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 dimana telah memicu persinggungan dalam hal kewenangan mengadili penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) antara Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dengan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pada perkembangannya, persinggungan kewenangan mengadili tersebut ditegaskan oleh Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2015 bahwa PTUN berwenang menerima, memeriksa, dan memutus permohonan penilaian ada atau tidak ada penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) dalam Keputusan dan/atau Tindakan Pejabat Pemerintahan sebelum adanya proses pidana. Sehubungan tidak dijelaskan tentang definisi dan batasan proses pidana yang dimaksud, maka timbul penafsiran yang berbeda. Perlu diadakan kesepakatan bersama dan dituangkan dalam regulasi tentang tapal batas persinggungan yang jelas tanpa meniadakan kewenangan pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang diskresi pada Pengadilan TUN.Discretion as free authority is vulnerable to being misused. The abuse of discretion implicating the state finance may be prosecuted by both administrative and criminal law. In view of the fact that the law on corruption eradication does not formulate in detail the intended element of authority abuse, the judges use the concept of authority abuse from administrative law. Problems arise when the enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 triggered an interception in terms of justice/ adjudicate authority on authority abuse (including discretion) between the Administrative Court and Corruption Court. In its development, the interception of justice authority is affirmed by Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 4 of 2015 that the Administrative Court has the authority to receive, examine and decide upon the appeal there is or there is no misuse of authority in the Decision and / or Action of Government Officials prior to the criminal process. That is, shortly before the commencement of the criminal process then that's when the authority of PTUN decides to judge the misuse of authority over the case. In this context, Perma No. 4 of 2015 has imposed restrictions on the authority of the TUN Court in prosecuting the abuse of discretionary authority.

STUDI KASUS PENETAPAN KEMBALI TARIF DAN/ATAU NILAI PABEAN (SPKTNP) OLEH DIREKTUR JENDERAL BEA DAN CUKAI: TINJAUAN PUTUSAN PENINJAUAN KEMBALI MAHKAMAH AGUNG RI

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Akhmad Firdiansyah ◽  
Wachid Hasyim ◽  
Yonathan Agung Pahlevi
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Director General ◽  
Import Duty ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

ABSTRACT In accordance with the mandate of Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution, all tax stipulations must be based on the law. To carry out the mandate in accordance with Article 17 of the Customs Law Number 17 of 2006, the Director General of Customs and Excise is given the attributive authority to issue reassignment letter on Customs Tariff and / or Value for the calculation of import duty within two years starting from the date of customs notification carried out through a mechanism of audit or re-research. To examine the application of these legal norms, there are currently Supreme Court (MA) Judgment (PK) decisions that accept PK applications from PK applicants and question the legality of issuing SPKTNP by the Director General of BC. This study uses explosive qualitative analysis to analyze the issuance of SPKTNP by the Director General of BC. The results of this study indicate that the Supreme Court is of the view that the issuance of SPKTNP by the Director General of BC is a legal defect, while DGCE considers the issuance of SPKTNP by the Director General of BC according to the provisions.Key words: official decision, reassignment letter, DCGE  ABSTRAKSesuai amanah Pasal 23A Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 Segala penetapan pajak harus berdasar undang-undang. Untuk menjalankan amanah tersebut sesuai Pasal 17 Undang-Undang Kepabeanan Nomor 17 Tahun 2006 Direktur Jenderal Bea dan Cukai (Dirjen BC) diberikan kewenangan atributif untuk menerbitkan Surat Penetapan Kembali Tarif dan/atau Nilai Pabean (SPKTNP) guna penghitungan bea masuk dalam jangka waktu dua tahun terhitung sejak tanggal pemberitahuan pabean yang dilakukan melalui mekanisme audit atau penelitian ulang. Untuk meneliti penerapan norma hukum tersebut dewasa ini terdapat putusan Peninjauan Kembali (PK) Mahkamah Agung (MA) yang menerima permohonan PK dari pemohon PK dan mempermasalahkan legalitas penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC. Penelitian ini mengunakan analisis kualitatif eksplotarif untuk menganalisis penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa MA berpandangan penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC adalah cacat hukum, sedangkan DJBC beranggapan penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC telah sesuai ketentuan.Kata Kunci: penetapan pejabat, SPKTNP, Direktur Jenderal Bea dan Cukai.

Private International Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
V.C. Govindaraj
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Application Of Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Corrective Measures ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

In deciding cases of private international law or conflict of laws, as it is widely known, judges of the Supreme Court in India generally consult the works of renowned English jurists like Dicey and Cheshire. This volume argues that our country should have its own system of resolving inter-territorial issues with cross-border implications. The author critically analyses cases covering areas such as the law of obligations, the law of persons, the law of property, foreign judgments, and foreign arbitral awards. The author provides his perspectives on the application of law in each case. The idea is to find out where the judges went wrong in deciding cases of private international law, so that corrective measures can be taken in future to resolve disputes involving complex, extra-territorial issues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document