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

Learning Outcomes

After studying this article, you will be able to explain the requirements for liability in private and public nuisance, and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. You will be able to identify the elements of strict liability, non-natural use, escape, and foreseeability, and apply the main defences. You will also be able to distinguish nuisance from Rylands v Fletcher and apply these rules to SQE1-style scenarios.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher from a practical standpoint. Focus your revision on:

• 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

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.

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.

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 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.

Foreseeability

The damage must be of a type that was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the escape.

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.

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).

Worked Example 1.2

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.

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.

Key Terms and Concepts

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