Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher - Requirement of...

Learning Outcomes

This article explains public and private nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, focusing on the SQE1 FLK1 requirement to distinguish public rights-based claims from land-based private interferences. It highlights the two civil action gateways in public nuisance—interference affecting a class of the public and the claimant’s special damage—and clarifies what counts as a “class of people” and “special damage” in problem questions. It details the Rylands elements of accumulation, escape, non‑natural use and foreseeability of the relevant type of damage, and shows how modern authorities limit strict liability. It discusses who can sue and be sued in each action, why a proprietary interest is required in private nuisance and Rylands claims but not in public nuisance, and how core defences (act of God, act of a stranger, statutory authority, consent and contributory negligence) operate. It analyzes recurring SQE1 pitfalls, including confusing public nuisance’s “class of people” with private nuisance’s proprietary interest requirement, overlooking the need for special damage in civil public nuisance, assuming negligence is needed in public nuisance, or treating the spread of fire alone as an “escape” under Rylands.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, including the requirements of a 'class of people' and 'special damage', with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• the distinction between public and private nuisance and their respective requirements
• the meaning and significance of a 'class of people' in public nuisance
• the requirement for 'special damage' to bring a civil claim in public nuisance
• the elements and application of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, including strict liability and escape
• how these doctrines interact and differ in practical scenarios
• classic authorities: Attorney‑General v PYA Quarries (class of public), R v Rimmington (individualised conduct not class), Corby Group Litigation (public nuisance and personal injury), Castle v St Augustine’s Links (highway users)
• modern refinements of Rylands: Cambridge Water (foreseeability of type of damage), Transco (non‑natural use; proprietary interest), Stannard v Gore (the thing accumulated must escape)

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. What must a claimant prove to bring a civil action in public nuisance?
2. In public nuisance, what is meant by a 'class of people'?
3. Which of the following is NOT a requirement for liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
   a) Non-natural use of land
   b) Escape of a dangerous thing
   c) Proof of negligence
   d) Foreseeable type of damage
4. True or false? A single isolated incident can never amount to public nuisance.

Introduction

Public and private nuisance are torts that regulate the use of land and protect the rights of individuals and the community. Public nuisance focuses on interferences affecting the public at large, while private nuisance protects the rights of individuals in the use and enjoyment of their land. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a special form of strict liability for escapes from land. Understanding the requirements of a 'class of people' and 'special damage' is essential for answering SQE1 questions on these topics.

Public Nuisance: 'Class of People' and 'Special Damage'

What is Public Nuisance?

Public nuisance is an unlawful act or omission that materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a section of the public. It is both a crime and a tort. In civil proceedings the focus is on compensating a claimant who has suffered particular harm beyond that suffered by the public at large, whereas criminal proceedings address the community’s interests more broadly.

Key Term: public nuisance
An act or omission that materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the public.

Public nuisance commonly arises where activities interfere with public rights, such as use of highways, rights of navigation, or environmental amenity across a neighbourhood. Local authorities or the Attorney General typically take action to restrain ongoing interference, but individual claimants can sue in tort if they meet the “special damage” gateway discussed below.

The 'Class of People' Requirement

To amount to public nuisance, the interference must affect a group, not just one or two individuals. The group must be a representative cross-section of the public, such as local residents, road users, or customers of a public facility. There is no fixed number, but the impact must be widespread enough that it is unreasonable to expect only one person to bring proceedings.

Classic illustrations include blasting operations that affect a locality (Attorney‑General v PYA Quarries), contamination affecting residents across an area (Corby Group Litigation), or hazards affecting highway users (Castle v St Augustine’s Links, where stray golf balls endangered road users).

Conversely, conduct aimed at many individuals is not necessarily conduct aimed at “the public” for public nuisance. A case of sending obscene letters to hundreds of separate recipients failed as public nuisance because the conduct was not targeted at a community or public right; it was a series of discrete wrongs to individuals (R v Rimmington).

Key Term: class of people
A representative group of the public affected by a nuisance, not just isolated individuals.

Common pitfalls:

• Treating “class of people” as a headcount threshold. The focus is on the nature of the impact: does it affect the public’s rights or a community’s comfort and convenience?
• Confusing public nuisance with mass private nuisance. Public nuisance protects public rights; private nuisance protects proprietary interests.

The 'Special Damage' Requirement

For a private individual to bring a civil claim in public nuisance, they must show that they have suffered 'special damage'—harm over and above that suffered by the general public. This is the necessary gateway for damages in a civil claim. Special damage can include personal injury, property damage or financial loss that is distinct from the inconvenience suffered by others. It is not confined to property damage: public nuisance can support damages for personal injury where a claimant suffers particular harm (e.g. Castle; Corby Group Litigation).

Importantly:

• Special damage must be different in kind or degree from that suffered by the class. Greater inconvenience alone is not enough unless it crosses into a distinct loss (e.g. quantifiable economic loss or physical harm).
• A proprietary interest is not required to sue in public nuisance. Any person who can show special damage may sue, including business owners suffering quantifiable loss from a highway obstruction.

Key Term: special damage
Damage suffered by a claimant in public nuisance that is over and above the harm suffered by the general public.

Worked Example 1.1

A local council closes a main road for repairs, causing inconvenience to all drivers. A café owner on the road loses significant business due to the closure. Can the café owner bring a claim in public nuisance?

Answer:
Yes. The road closure affects a class of people (road users), but the café owner suffers special damage (loss of business) beyond the general inconvenience, so they can bring a claim.

Public nuisance can be established by a continuing or recurring interference, but a one‑off incident can also suffice if it materially affects public rights or comfort to a sufficient extent. The emphasis remains on the extent and nature of the impact rather than its duration.

Who Can Sue and Who Can Be Sued?

Anyone who suffers special damage from a public nuisance can sue, even if they do not have a proprietary interest in land. The defendant is usually the person or entity responsible for creating, adopting or continuing the nuisance. A local authority or company exercising statutory powers may rely on statutory authority as a defence if the interference is an inevitable consequence of authorised activity, but this is fact‑sensitive and does not confer a blanket immunity.

Worked Example 1.2

A factory emits smoke that causes discomfort to local residents and damages the stock of a nearby shop. The residents and the shop owner both want to sue.

Answer:
The residents may not have a claim unless they suffer special damage. The shop owner, if their stock is damaged (special damage), can bring a claim in public nuisance.

Exam Warning

In public nuisance, always check if the claimant has suffered special damage. Without it, they cannot bring a civil claim, even if the nuisance affects a class of people.

Worked Example 1.3

A one‑day music festival causes noise and road closures across a town, disrupting local residents and road users. A taxi firm proves it lost a large number of bookings that day and had vehicles damaged due to forced diversions onto a poorly surfaced route.

Answer:
The festival’s impact is on a class of people (residents and road users). The taxi firm’s quantifiable loss of bookings and property damage go beyond the public inconvenience and amount to special damage. The civil action can proceed in public nuisance.

Private Nuisance: Comparison

Private nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land. Unlike public nuisance, only those with a proprietary interest in the affected land can sue, and there is no need to prove special damage—substantial interference is enough. The interference must originate from the defendant’s land (Hunter v Canary Wharf). Private nuisance addresses the balance between reasonable user and protection of neighbouring proprietary interests, factoring in locality, duration, and sensitivity.

Key Term: private nuisance
An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land.

The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability on a person who, for their own purposes, brings onto their land something likely to do mischief if it escapes, and it does escape, causing foreseeable damage. It is often described as a specialised branch of private nuisance focusing on hazardous accumulations and escape.

Key Term: Rylands v Fletcher (rule)
Strict liability for damage caused by the escape of a dangerous thing from land due to non-natural use.

Elements of the Rule

To establish liability under Rylands v Fletcher, the claimant must prove:

1. The defendant brought onto their land something likely to cause harm if it escapes (an accumulation for the defendant’s purposes).
2. The use of land was non-natural (extraordinary or unusual in the circumstances).
3. The thing escaped from the defendant's land to outside their control.
4. The escape caused foreseeable type of damage.

These elements have been refined by modern authority:

• Non‑natural use is now judged against contemporary standards as “an exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing in extraordinary or unusual circumstances” (Transco plc v Stockport MBC). Ordinary domestic or common utility uses are generally outside the rule.
• Foreseeability of the relevant type of damage (not merely causation) is required (Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather).
• The “thing” that was accumulated must itself escape. If only fire spreads, but the accumulated thing (e.g. tyres) remains in place, Rylands will not typically apply (Stannard v Gore).

Key Term: non-natural use
A use of land that is extraordinary or increases the risk to others, not ordinary use in the circumstances.

Key Term: escape
The movement of a dangerous thing from the defendant's land to outside their control, causing damage.

Strict Liability

Liability under Rylands v Fletcher is strict—there is no need to prove negligence. However, the claimant must show that the type of damage was reasonably foreseeable in light of Cambridge Water. Strict liability can therefore be displaced where the defendant demonstrates a recognised defence (see Defences below).

Worked Example 1.4

A tyre wholesaler stores thousands of tyres on its land. A fire (of unknown origin) starts, and the flames spread to a neighbouring building. The tyres themselves do not move off the land. The neighbour sues under Rylands v Fletcher.

Answer:
The claim under Rylands v Fletcher is unlikely to succeed. The thing accumulated (tyres) did not escape; it was fire that spread, and the tyres are not themselves a hazardous substance likely to do mischief if they escape. Stannard v Gore emphasises that the accumulated thing must escape. Other causes of action (e.g. negligence, where fault can be proven) may be considered.

Worked Example 1.5

A company stores large tanks of chemicals on its land. Due to a leak, chemicals escape and contaminate a neighbour's field. The company took all reasonable care.

Answer:
The company is strictly liable under Rylands v Fletcher because the storage of chemicals is a non-natural use, the chemicals escaped, and foreseeable property damage occurred.

Relationship with Public and Private Nuisance

Rylands v Fletcher is often considered a special type of private nuisance, but it can apply to isolated escapes rather than ongoing interferences. Unlike public nuisance, it does not require a class of people to be affected or special damage. As with private nuisance, a proprietary interest is required to sue. The damage covered is land‑related; personal injury is generally not recoverable under Rylands (Cambridge Water; Transco), whereas public nuisance can include personal injury where the claimant suffers special damage.

In practice, many hazardous escape claims are now advanced in negligence (where fault can be proved) or statutory regimes. Rylands remains relevant for classic accumulations and escapes where fault cannot be shown but the strict elements are satisfied.

Defences

Defences to public nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher include:

• Consent of the claimant
• Act of a stranger (an unforeseeable third‑party act over which the defendant had no control)
• Act of God (extraordinary natural event)
• Statutory authority (where the interference is an inevitable consequence of authorised activity)
• Contributory negligence (may reduce damages)

In public nuisance, statutory authority is assessed by asking whether the interference with public rights was an inevitable result of properly executed authorised works; if not, liability may still arise. In Rylands, “stranger” and “act of God” defences require genuine unforeseeability; if the defendant ought reasonably to have anticipated the intervening act or natural event, the defence will normally fail.

Summary

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Public nuisance requires interference with a class of people and special damage for a civil claim.
• The 'class of people' is a representative group of the public, not just individuals.
• Special damage is harm suffered by a claimant beyond that suffered by the public.
• Public nuisance can support claims for personal injury where the claimant suffers particular harm.
• Private nuisance protects proprietary interests and does not require special damage.
• The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for escapes due to non-natural use of land.
• Rylands v Fletcher does not require a class of people or special damage, but does require escape and foreseeable type of damage.
• The accumulated thing must itself escape under Rylands; fire alone spreading is not enough (Stannard v Gore).
• Modern refinements: foreseeability of the type of damage (Cambridge Water) and the “exceptionally dangerous” standard for non‑natural use (Transco).
• Defences include act of God, act of a stranger, statutory authority, consent and contributory negligence.

Key Terms and Concepts

• public nuisance
• class of people
• special damage
• private nuisance
• Rylands v Fletcher (rule)
• non-natural use
• escape