Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher - The rule in Ry...

Learning Outcomes

This article explains private and public nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for SQE1, focusing on the core elements, limitations and exam‑relevant distinctions. It clarifies what amounts to an unlawful and unreasonable interference with land, how factors such as locality, duration, sensitivity, malice and public benefit are weighed, and who can sue or be sued in each tort. It explains the types of loss recoverable, distinguishing property damage from loss of amenity and highlighting the restricted role of personal injury, particularly under Rylands. It details the requirements of the Rylands rule—dangerous things brought onto land, non‑natural use, escape, and foreseeability of the kind of damage—showing how Cambridge Water and Transco shape modern strict liability. It reviews the main defences, including act of a stranger, consent, statutory authority, act of God, prescription and contributory negligence, and indicates how they limit or reduce liability. It also analyzes the relationship between nuisance and Rylands, emphasising why Rylands is treated as a sub‑species of nuisance and when a claimant should plead one or both. Throughout, it demonstrates how to apply these principles to SQE1‑style multiple‑choice and scenario questions with precision and exam‑focused reasoning.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher from a practical standpoint, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• the definition and elements of private and public nuisance
• the requirements for liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
• the meaning of non-natural use, escape, and strict liability
• the main defences available to nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher claims
• the differences between nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
• how to apply these principles to factual scenarios
• foreseeability of the type of damage in Rylands v Fletcher (Cambridge Water) and the modern approach to “non-natural use” (Transco)
• remedies for nuisance (damages, injunctions including tailored/quiatimet injunctions, and abatement)
• the impact of planning permission and public benefit (Coventry v Lawrence) on liability and remedies in nuisance
• limits on recovery (e.g. personal injury generally not recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher; property-only under OLA 1984 for trespassers)

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 are the essential elements a claimant must prove to establish liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
2. In what circumstances can a defendant escape liability for nuisance or under Rylands v Fletcher?
3. Which of the following is required for a successful claim in public nuisance? a) interference with a single individual’s land
   b) damage suffered by a class of people
   c) proof of negligence by the defendant
   d) a non-natural use of land
4. True or false? Personal injury is always recoverable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Introduction

Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher are key torts regulating the use of land and liability for harm caused to others. Both are frequently tested in the SQE1 exam. This article explains the requirements for private and public nuisance, the strict liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and the main defences. You will learn how to identify and apply these principles to factual scenarios.

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is best understood as a specialised form of private nuisance, imposing strict liability for escapes of dangerous things in the course of an extraordinary (non-natural) use of land. Modern cases emphasise two limits: the requirement of an “escape” to land outside the defendant’s control, and the requirement that the kind of damage suffered is reasonably foreseeable (Cambridge Water). The House of Lords in Transco confirmed that the rule is narrow and should not be treated as a general alternative to negligence.

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE

Nuisance covers two main torts: private nuisance and public nuisance. Both deal with indirect interferences with land or public rights.

Private nuisance

Private nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over it. The interference must be substantial and unreasonable.

Key Term: private nuisance
An unlawful and indirect interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over it.
To succeed, the claimant must show:

• interference with their use or enjoyment of land (e.g. noise, smells, dust, vibrations, encroaching tree roots)
• that the interference is unreasonable in all the circumstances

Relevant factors include:

• duration and frequency of the interference (continuous or recurring problems are more likely to be actionable)
• character of the locality (what is reasonable in an industrial area may not be in a residential area)
• sensitivity of the claimant (the law protects ordinary use, not abnormally sensitive uses)
• malice or motive of the defendant (deliberate acts to annoy are more likely to be unreasonable)
• public benefit (rarely a defence, but may affect remedies)

Key Term: unreasonable interference
Interference that goes beyond what ordinary occupiers should be expected to tolerate, judged by the circumstances.

Only those with a proprietary interest in the affected land (owners or tenants) can sue.

The nature of the harm matters. Material physical damage to property (e.g. corrosive smuts damaging plants or buildings) is typically actionable regardless of locality; loss of amenity (e.g. odour, noise) is judged with locality in mind. In St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping, the court distinguished between these two categories, a distinction still used when courts weigh the character of the neighbourhood. Sensitivity remains relevant: in Robinson v Kilvert, damage due to heat affecting unusually delicate paper did not render the defendant’s ordinary use unreasonable, whereas if ordinary plants or paper would be affected, liability may follow and damages are assessed fully even if the claimant’s use is more sensitive (egg-shell approach seen in McKinnon).

Public benefit is not a defence to liability, but it often informs remedies. In Coventry v Lawrence, the Supreme Court reiterated that planning permission does not authorise a nuisance, though the conditions of a permission (e.g. specified noise limits and operating hours) may be evidence relevant to remedies and reasonableness. An injunction can be tailored (for instance limiting noise levels or operating times) to balance both parties’ interests.

Remedies include damages for physical damage and loss of amenity, and injunctions (prohibitory, mandatory or quia timet), with equitable discretion guiding the form. Abatement (reasonable self-help, such as trimming encroaching branches at the boundary) is available but must be exercised with care to avoid trespass or disproportionate acts.

Who can be sued? The creator of the nuisance, the occupier who adopts or continues it (including nuisances originating from natural occurrences or third-party actions once known and unaddressed), and a landlord who expressly or impliedly authorises a nuisance. Occupiers may be liable if they continue or adopt a nuisance created by trespassers (e.g. a blocked culvert they use and fail to maintain) once they know or ought reasonably to know of it.

Public nuisance

Public nuisance is both a crime and a tort. It involves conduct that materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of people.

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

To claim in tort, a claimant must show:

• the nuisance affects a class of people (not just individuals)
• they have suffered special damage over and above the general public

Examples include blocking a highway, polluting a river, or causing widespread noise.

The “class of people” requirement is flexible; courts assess whether a significant cross-section of the public is affected (Attorney-General v PYA Quarries). Individuals may recover only for special damage above the general inconvenience suffered by the class (e.g. personal injury or property damage caused by stray golf balls where highway users are generally affected by balls leaving a course).

THE RULE IN RYLANDS v FLETCHER

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a strict liability tort for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things from land.

Key Term: rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Strict liability for damage caused by the escape of something likely to do mischief, brought onto land for a non-natural use.
To establish liability, the claimant must prove:

1. The defendant brought onto their land something likely to do mischief if it escapes.
2. The thing was accumulated for the defendant’s own purposes.
3. The use of land was non-natural.
4. The thing escaped from the defendant’s land.
5. The escape caused foreseeable damage of the relevant type.

Key Term: non-natural use
A use of land that is extraordinary or unusual, increasing the risk to others beyond ordinary use.

Key Term: escape
The movement of the dangerous thing from the defendant’s land to land outside their control.

Key Term: strict liability
Liability imposed without proof of fault or negligence, provided the requirements of the tort are met.

Rylands liability is narrow and applies only where the dangerous thing itself escapes to another’s land. In Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v Gore, tyres stored on land caught fire and flames spread; the claim failed because the tyres (the thing brought on the land) did not escape, and the fire was not itself a “thing” accumulated by the defendant likely to do mischief if it escaped. In Read v J Lyons, an explosion occurred within a factory; without any escape to land outside the defendant’s control, Rylands did not apply.

Non-natural use is judged against contemporary standards of ordinary use. In Transco plc v Stockport MBC, a water pipe within a local authority’s infrastructure leaked and destabilised an embankment, threatening a gas main. The House of Lords held that supplying water via domestic plumbing is not a non-natural use, and the rule did not apply. The court emphasised that Rylands is a sub-species of nuisance, not a general replacement for negligence or occupiers’ liability, and requires an extraordinary or unusual use.

Foreseeability

The damage must be of a type that was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the escape. Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc established that Rylands liability requires foreseeability of the kind of damage at the time of accumulation/use. There, solvents used in tanning seeped through the soil into water abstracted by the claimant; the court held that long-range contamination of water supplies by minute solvent leakage was not then reasonably foreseeable, so the claim failed.

Worked Example 1.1

A factory stores large tanks of chemicals for its operations. Due to a leak, chemicals escape onto neighbouring farmland, killing crops. Is the factory liable under Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer:
Yes, if the storage of chemicals is a non-natural use, the chemicals are likely to do mischief if they escape, and the escape causes foreseeable property damage. The factory is strictly liable even if it took reasonable care.

Worked Example 1.2

A tyre distributor stores thousands of tyres. A fire starts on the premises and flames spread, damaging a neighbour’s building. The tyres themselves remain on the defendant’s land. Can the neighbour succeed under Rylands?

Answer:
No. The thing brought onto the land (tyres) did not escape. Rylands requires escape of the very thing accumulated that is likely to do mischief if it escapes. A fire that starts is not the accumulated “thing” and, absent escape of the tyres, the strict liability rule does not apply.

Worked Example 1.3

A council-owned water pipe leaks due to ordinary wear, undermining an embankment and exposing a gas main owned by a third party. Is this a Rylands claim?

Answer:
No. Supplying water via domestic plumbing is ordinary use, not “non-natural”. The rule in Rylands is confined to extraordinary uses that pose increased risks to neighbours. Negligence may be considered, but Rylands does not apply (Transco).

DEFENCES TO NUISANCE AND RYLANDS v FLETCHER

The main defences are:

• Act of a stranger: The escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a third party.
• Consent: The claimant consented to the accumulation or activity.
• Statutory authority: The defendant’s actions were authorised by statute.
• Act of God: The escape was caused by an unforeseeable natural event.
• Prescription: The defendant has acquired a right to continue the activity by 20 years’ uninterrupted use (private nuisance only).
• Contributory negligence: The claimant’s own carelessness contributed to the loss (may reduce damages).

The “act of a stranger” defence applies where a third party’s unforeseeable intervention causes the escape (e.g. a vandal opening a valve). Conversely, where the defendant knows of repeated third-party intrusions or risks and fails to take reasonable steps, the defence may be unavailable.

Statutory authority is effective where Parliament has authorised the activity and the nuisance or escape is the inevitable consequence of carrying out that authority (Allen v Gulf Oil Refining). Planning permission alone is not statutory authority.

“Act of God” is construed narrowly; severe weather is common and often foreseeable. Liability may arise where the defendant’s works exacerbate natural forces (as in the paddling pool flooding case).

Prescription succeeds only if the interference has been actionable and continuous for 20 years from when the claimant first became aware of it (Sturges v Bridgman). It does not apply to public nuisance or Rylands.

Worked Example 1.4

A landowner builds a reservoir. A trespasser deliberately damages the wall, causing water to flood a neighbour’s land. Is the landowner liable under Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer:
No, if the escape was caused solely by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, the landowner has a defence.

Exam Warning

For SQE1, remember that personal injury is not generally recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher. The tort is limited to property damage or loss of amenity.

DISTINCTIONS AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUISANCE AND RYLANDS v FLETCHER

• Nuisance requires unreasonable interference; Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for escapes.
• Rylands v Fletcher is considered a special type of nuisance for isolated escapes.
• Both require a proprietary interest to sue.
• Rylands v Fletcher does not cover personal injury; nuisance does not require an escape.
• “Non-natural use” under Rylands is judged by modern standards and is exceptional; ordinary domestic or municipal uses typically fall outside the rule (Transco).
• Foreseeability under Rylands concerns the kind of damage resulting from the escape (Cambridge Water), not just the possibility of escape.

Nuisance commonly addresses ongoing interferences, judged against locality, duration, sensitivity and malice. Rylands targets isolated escapes of dangerous accumulations. The escape requirement is key: a dangerous incident within the defendant’s premises without escape is not within Rylands (Read v Lyons). Where the dangerous thing escapes and causes foreseeable property damage, strict liability may arise even if the defendant used reasonable care, provided the use was non-natural.

Worked Example 1.5

A tannery uses a solvent in volumes typical of the industry in the early 1980s. Minute leakage over many years reaches a borehole, contaminating water. Was Rylands liability likely at that time?

Answer:
No, if the kind of damage (remote contamination of water supplies from minute solvent leakage) was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the activity. Cambridge Water requires foreseeability of the type of damage resulting from the escape.

Revision Tip

For SQE1, be able to distinguish between ongoing interferences (private nuisance) and isolated escapes (Rylands v Fletcher). Know the elements and defences for each.

Summary

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The definition and requirements for private and public nuisance.
• The elements of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
• The meaning of non-natural use, escape, and strict liability.
• The main defences to nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher.
• The differences between nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, and when each applies.
• The modern limits on Rylands: the need for an escape, non-natural use assessed against contemporary standards (Transco), and foreseeability of the kind of damage (Cambridge Water).
• Remedies in nuisance: damages, tailored injunctions (including quia timet), and cautious abatement.
• How planning permission and public benefit affect liability and remedies (Coventry v Lawrence).
• Who can sue: proprietary interest for private nuisance and Rylands; “class of people” and special damage for public nuisance.

Key Terms and Concepts

• private nuisance
• unreasonable interference
• public nuisance
• rule in Rylands v Fletcher
• non-natural use
• escape
• strict liability

Worked Example 1.6

An ammunition factory experiences an internal explosion that injures a visitor inside. There is no escape of anything to outside land. Does Rylands apply?

Answer:
No. Without an escape to land outside the defendant’s control, Rylands v Fletcher is not engaged. Other causes of action (e.g. negligence, occupiers’ liability) may be relevant.