Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher - Defences and remedies under Rylands v Fletcher

Learning Outcomes

This article details the specific defences available to a claim brought under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and the remedies that may be awarded if such a claim is successful. For the SQE1 assessment, you need to be able to identify and apply the principles governing these defences, such as consent, act of a stranger, act of God, statutory authority, and contributory negligence. You must also understand the types of damage recoverable and the primary remedy available, specifically damages for harm to land or property interests, excluding personal injury.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the defences and remedies applicable specifically to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Your knowledge should enable you to analyse scenarios and identify the availability and effect of defences, and the appropriate remedies. Remember to consider the following in your revision:

  • The specific defences applicable to Rylands v Fletcher claims (eg Act of God, consent, act of a stranger).
  • The distinction between complete and partial defences (eg contributory negligence).
  • The types of loss recoverable under the rule (ie damage to land or property interests, not personal injury).
  • The primary remedy of damages and the principles governing its assessment in this context, including remoteness.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

  1. Which of the following is generally NOT a defence to a claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
    1. The defendant exercised all reasonable care.
    2. The escape was caused by an unforeseeable act of a stranger.
    3. The claimant consented to the accumulation of the substance.
    4. The damage was caused by an Act of God.
  2. A chemical company stores large quantities of industrial solvent on its land. Vandals break in and deliberately open a valve, causing the solvent to escape and contaminate neighbouring land. Which defence is the company most likely to rely on?
    1. Act of God.
    2. Consent.
    3. Act of a stranger.
    4. Statutory authority.

  3. True or false? A claimant can recover damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of an escape under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Introduction

Once the essential elements for liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher have been established (accumulation of a dangerous thing, non-natural use of land, escape, and foreseeable damage of the relevant type), the defendant may still avoid or reduce liability by successfully raising a defence. It is also important to understand the specific remedies available, primarily damages, and the types of harm for which compensation can be claimed under this rule. This article examines these defences and remedies, providing clarity for your SQE1 preparation.

Defences to Rylands v Fletcher

Several defences can be raised against a claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. These are distinct from defences in negligence, reflecting the strict liability nature of the tort, although some overlap exists.

Consent (Volenti non fit injuria)

If the claimant expressly or impliedly consented to the presence of the substance that escaped, the defendant may have a complete defence. Consent might be implied where the accumulation benefits both the claimant and the defendant.

Key Term: Consent (Volenti non fit injuria)
A complete defence where the claimant freely and voluntarily agrees, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk, to absolve the defendant from liability for injury or damage resulting from the defendant's conduct.

Worked Example 1.1

Ahmed owns a flat directly below Beatrice. The water tank supplying both flats is located in Beatrice's attic. The tank bursts, causing water to leak and damage Ahmed's flat. Can Beatrice rely on the defence of consent?

Answer: Possibly. If the water tank installation was for the common benefit of both flat owners, Ahmed's consent to its presence might be implied. Beatrice could potentially argue that Ahmed implicitly consented to the risk associated with the shared water supply system.

Act of a Stranger

A defendant is not liable if the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a third party over whom the defendant had no control.

Key Term: Act of a stranger
A defence where the escape is caused by the unforeseeable act of a third party over whom the defendant has no control. The defendant must demonstrate they took reasonable precautions against such interference.

The act must be unforeseeable. If the defendant should have anticipated the third party's actions and failed to take precautions, the defence may fail.

Act of God

This defence applies if the escape was caused by natural forces so exceptional that they could not have been foreseen or guarded against.

Key Term: Act of God
A defence where the escape is caused solely by extraordinary natural forces, without human intervention, which could not have been foreseen or reasonably guarded against (e.g., an unprecedented earthquake or flood).

This defence is difficult to establish in modern times due to advances in weather forecasting and engineering. Routine natural events like heavy rain usually do not qualify.

Statutory Authority

If the defendant's activity, including the accumulation of the substance, is authorised by statute, this provides a defence if the escape is an inevitable consequence of that activity.

Key Term: Statutory authority
A defence available when the defendant's actions, including the accumulation and potential escape of the substance, are explicitly or implicitly authorised by an Act of Parliament. The escape must be an unavoidable consequence of exercising that authority.

The defendant must show that the escape could not have been prevented by exercising all due care while carrying out the authorised activity.

Contributory Negligence

If the claimant’s own carelessness contributed to the damage suffered, their damages may be reduced under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.

Key Term: Contributory negligence
A partial defence where the claimant's own failure to take reasonable care for their safety contributes to the damage they suffer. If established, the claimant's damages are reduced proportionally to their share of responsibility.

Exam Warning

Remember that Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability. Therefore, showing that the defendant took all reasonable care to prevent the escape is generally NOT a defence, unlike in negligence. The key defences focus on the cause of the escape (stranger, Act of God) or the claimant's own conduct/consent.

Remedies under Rylands v Fletcher

The primary remedy for a successful claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is damages.

Damages

Damages are awarded to compensate the claimant for the harm caused by the escape.

Key Term: Damages
Monetary compensation awarded by a court to a claimant for loss or injury suffered as a result of the defendant's tortious act.

Importantly, under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, damages are only recoverable for damage to land or property interests situated on the land. Personal injury claims are not recoverable under this tort (Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1947] AC 156 (HL)). A claimant suffering personal injury would need to establish a claim in negligence or another relevant tort.

Remoteness

The rules on remoteness of damage apply. Following Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (HL), the damage suffered must be of a type that was reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the escape. If the type of damage was not foreseeable, it will be considered too remote and irrecoverable, even though liability under the rule is strict regarding the escape itself.

Injunctions

Injunctions are equitable remedies granted at the court's discretion. While less common for the isolated escapes typically associated with Rylands v Fletcher, an injunction might potentially be sought if there is a continuing risk of escape or ongoing damage.

Key Term: Injunction
A court order requiring a party to do a specific act (mandatory injunction) or refrain from doing a specific act (prohibitory injunction).

Worked Example 1.2

A factory stores a large quantity of volatile chemicals (a non-natural use). Due to an unprecedented and unforeseeable earthquake (Act of God), the storage tanks rupture, and chemicals escape onto neighbouring farmland, poisoning the soil and killing crops. The farmer also suffers anxiety and distress. What remedies can the farmer claim against the factory under Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer: The farmer can claim damages for the harm to their land (poisoned soil) and property interests (dead crops), provided this type of damage was foreseeable. The defence of Act of God might succeed if the earthquake was truly unforeseeable and exceptional. The farmer cannot claim damages for anxiety and distress (personal injury) under Rylands v Fletcher. They would need to pursue a separate claim, likely in negligence, for any personal harm, which would be difficult given the strict requirements for psychiatric injury.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

  • The main defences to a Rylands v Fletcher claim are consent, act of a stranger, Act of God, statutory authority, and contributory negligence.
  • The exercise of reasonable care by the defendant is not a defence due to the strict liability nature of the tort.
  • The defence of 'Act of God' requires an exceptional and unforeseeable natural event.
  • The defence of 'Act of a stranger' requires the third party's act to be unforeseeable and beyond the defendant's control.
  • Contributory negligence operates as a partial defence, reducing damages.
  • The primary remedy under Rylands v Fletcher is damages.
  • Damages are recoverable only for damage to land or property interests, not for personal injury.
  • The damage must be a reasonably foreseeable type of harm resulting from the escape (Cambridge Water).
  • Injunctions are a possible but less common remedy.

Key Terms and Concepts

  • Consent (Volenti non fit injuria)
  • Act of a stranger
  • Act of God
  • Statutory authority
  • Contributory negligence
  • Damages
  • Injunction
The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Barbri SQE
One-time Fee
$3,800-6,900
BPP SQE
One-time Fee
$5,400-8,200
College of Legal P...
One-time Fee
$2,300-9,100
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Law Training Centr...
One-time Fee
$500-6,200
QLTS SQE
One-time Fee
$2,500-3,800
University of Law...
One-time Fee
$6,200-22,400

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal