## Facts

- The claimant, Leakey, owned properties at the base of a large mound on land owned by the defendant, the National Trust.
- Natural erosion of the mound over time caused soil and rubble to fall onto the claimant's land.
- A dry summer led to significant cracking of the mound, heightening the risk of a major landslip.
- Leakey warned the National Trust about the danger, but the Trust denied liability, arguing the erosion was a natural process.
- Subsequently, a major landslip deposited soil and tree stumps onto the claimant's land.
- The initial court held the National Trust liable in nuisance for the damage and awarded damages to Leakey.
- The National Trust appealed, claiming non-responsibility for natural hazards.
- The case proceeded to the Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether an occupier is liable in nuisance for damage to a neighbour caused by natural hazards originating on their land.
2. Whether an occupier’s duty arises from an awareness of the danger and failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate it.
3. Whether the obligation to abate a nuisance arising from natural processes imposes a standard that considers the occupier’s personal circumstances and resources.
4. To what extent the strict liability doctrine from Rylands v Fletcher applies to naturally occurring hazards.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the National Trust's appeal.
- It confirmed that landowners have a duty to take reasonable steps to address hazards on their property, regardless of whether the source is natural or man-made.
- The duty is not absolute but is limited to reasonable steps, considering the landowner’s knowledge and capacity.
- Liability arose from the Trust's actual knowledge of the risk and their complete inaction.
- The standard of reasonableness can include subjective factors such as the occupier’s financial and physical ability.
- An occupier is not always required to fully abate the hazard but must act within reasonable means, which may include allowing the neighbour to carry out remedial action.
- Defences based on the claimant ‘coming to the nuisance’ were rejected.

## Legal Principles

- Nuisance law now extends to naturally occurring hazards if the occupier has actual or constructive knowledge and fails to take reasonable steps to abate the risk.
- The standard of care is not absolute and incorporates subjective factors such as finances and ability.
- Failure to act can establish liability even if the hazard was not caused by human activity.
- The ruling aligns with and builds upon the principles from Goldman v Hargrave, applying a duty of care to nuisance law.
- The strict liability approach of Rylands v Fletcher informs, but does not wholly govern, liability for natural hazards.
- Prior absence of a positive duty to abate hazards on land has been replaced by an affirmative obligation to act reasonably.

## Conclusion

Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485 marks a significant development in nuisance law by imposing an affirmative duty on occupiers to take reasonable steps, having regard to their means and awareness, to mitigate natural hazards that may harm neighbouring property. This expands potential liability, subject to a defence of reasonableness, and affirms a shift towards a duty of care in nuisance cases involving natural processes.
