He owners of land can suffer harm and Tort serves to rectify the Essay

He owners of land can suffer harm and Tort serves to rectify the situation. Is this true with regard to real property - Essay Example However, in mordern days, most of the tort cases related to land property are highly subject to a lot of other considerations such as the public interests and distance to the exact location of the land owner’s property among others. In response to the continuously changing reforms within the English legal system, commercial property lawyers should consider all other statutory guidelines which can directly affect the judges’ final decision when it comes to torts related to land property. For example, when dealing with cases related to â€Å"aggravated trespass in buildings†, commercial property lawyers should consider the guidelines stipulated under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 20032. There are cases wherein the land owners can suffer from harm. In line with this, the main purpose of this study is to determine whether or not Tort law in UK can serve as a solution to situations wherein the land owners are suffering from harm. As a common knowledge, the scope of th e English tort law is too broad. Therefore, in relation to different kind of tort law, this study will make use of several past and current cases to examine the extend in which tort law can rectify situations related to real property. Examples of Tort Cases Related to Real Property Nuisance is legally defined as â€Å"a wrongful interference with the plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of property†3. Unlike in the case of trespassing, nuisance is pertaining to an indirect act of invading or entering the property of another person whether it be an object or not4. Under the English tort law, the land owners can sue another party that causes direct or indirect damages to the property, nuisances, or negligence. For instance, in the case of Miller v Jackson5, Mr. and Mrs. Miller (the plaintiffs) legally sued the chairman of a cricket club in County Durham (defendant) for nuisance and negligence6. Due to close geographical situation with the club (approax. 100 feet), there were ins tances wherein the cricket balls could hit the Miller’s property causing minor damages not only to the house paint but also to their brickworks and roof tiles7, 8, 9. Furthermore, the Millers were also at risk of physical injury each time there is a cricket game10. To address the problem, the club took some measures by putting up a fence and boundary walls. It even came to a point wherein the club offered the Millers ?400 for the minor property damages and promised them that the club would invest in putting up a net to protect the Millers’ garden. Since the Millers were not contented with the said arrangement, the couple filed a case against the club. After hearing the case, Reeve J. decded that the club should pay the Millers the amount of ?150 for the damages, inconvenience, and invasion of Millers’ property11. After the plaintiffs appealed the case, both Geoffrey Lane LJ and Cumming-Bruce LJ12 supported the Millers’ side explaining that the situation c an cause serious nuisance to the couple and each time the cricket ball would cross-over the Millers’ fence and cause damges to the Millers’ property makes the club guilty of negligence13, 14, 15. Because of the need to balance the public interests (i.e. the people who were accustomed in playing the crickets in that area for the past 70 years) with the interest of the property owner close within the said jurisdiction16, 17, 18, 19, Lord Denning decided that the club