Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher - Unlawful interference with use or enjoyment of land

Learning Outcomes

After reading this article, you will be able to identify and apply the legal principles governing private and public nuisance, including the requirements for unlawful interference with land. You will understand the strict liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher, the elements needed to establish liability, and the main defences. You will also be able to distinguish between nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, and advise on appropriate remedies for land-related torts.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the law relating to unlawful interference with land, including nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. In your revision, focus on:

• the definition and elements of private nuisance and public nuisance
• who can sue and who can be sued in nuisance claims
• the requirements for liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
• the distinction between nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
• available remedies and defences for both torts

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. Who can bring a claim in private nuisance?
2. What are the essential elements required to establish liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
3. What is the difference between public and private nuisance?
4. Name two defences available to a defendant facing a Rylands v Fletcher claim.

Introduction

Unlawful interference with the use or enjoyment of land is addressed in tort law through the doctrines of nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. These torts protect landowners and occupiers from substantial and unreasonable disturbances or dangers originating from neighbouring land. For SQE1, you must be able to identify the elements of each tort, apply them to factual scenarios, and distinguish between them.

Private Nuisance

Private nuisance protects a person's right to use and enjoy their land without substantial and unreasonable interference from others. The interference must be indirect (such as noise, smells, or encroaching roots) and not a direct trespass.

Key Term: private nuisance
An unlawful and indirect interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over or in connection with it.

Who can sue and who can be sued?

Only those with a proprietary interest in the affected land (such as owners or tenants) can bring a claim in private nuisance. The defendant may be the creator of the nuisance, the occupier of the land from which the nuisance originates, or, in some cases, a landlord who has authorised the nuisance.

Key Term: proprietary interest
A legal right to exclusive possession of land, such as ownership or a leasehold interest.

What amounts to unlawful interference?

To be actionable, the interference must be both substantial and unreasonable. The court will consider several factors:

• Character of the locality: What is reasonable in an industrial area may not be in a residential area.
• Duration and frequency: Persistent or long-lasting interferences are more likely to be unreasonable.
• Sensitivity of the claimant: The standard is that of the ordinary occupier, not someone unusually sensitive.
• Malice: Deliberate acts to annoy or harm are more likely to be unlawful.
• Public benefit: The usefulness of the defendant's activity may be considered, but does not excuse a nuisance.

Key Term: unlawful interference
A substantial and unreasonable disturbance to the use or enjoyment of land, judged by the standard of the ordinary occupier.

Types of interference

Private nuisance can arise from:

• encroachment onto land (e.g., tree roots)
• physical damage to land or buildings (e.g., chemical fumes)
• interference with comfort or enjoyment (e.g., noise, odours, dust)

Worked Example 1.1

A bakery operates late into the night, producing strong smells and loud machinery noise. A neighbouring homeowner complains that sleep is disturbed every night. Is this likely to be private nuisance?

Answer: Yes. Persistent noise and odours interfering with sleep are substantial and unreasonable interferences with the use and enjoyment of land, likely to amount to private nuisance.

Defences to private nuisance

• Prescription: If the nuisance has continued for at least 20 years without complaint, the defendant may acquire a right to continue.
• Statutory authority: If the activity is authorised by statute and the nuisance is unavoidable, this may be a defence.
• Consent: If the claimant expressly or impliedly agreed to the interference.
• Act of God: Unforeseeable natural events may excuse liability.

Remedies for private nuisance

• Injunction: Court order to stop or limit the nuisance.
• Damages: Compensation for loss or harm suffered.
• Abatement: The claimant may take reasonable steps to remove the nuisance (e.g., cutting overhanging branches), usually after giving notice.

Public Nuisance

Public nuisance is both a tort and a crime. It involves unreasonable interference with rights common to the public, such as the use of a highway or public resources.

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

Who can sue?

Any member of the affected class who suffers special damage (over and above that suffered by the public generally) can bring a claim in tort. The Attorney General or a local authority may also bring proceedings on behalf of the public.

Elements of public nuisance

• The nuisance must affect a class of people (not just one individual).
• The claimant must suffer special damage beyond that suffered by the general public.

Worked Example 1.2

A factory regularly emits smoke that causes breathing difficulties for many residents in a neighbourhood. One resident develops a serious lung condition as a result. Can this resident bring a claim in public nuisance?

Answer: Yes. The smoke affects a class of people (the neighbourhood), and the resident has suffered special damage (serious illness) beyond the general inconvenience.

The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things from land where they have been accumulated for a non-natural use.

Key Term: Rylands v Fletcher (rule)
A strict liability tort where a person who brings onto their land something likely to cause harm if it escapes is liable for damage caused by its escape, provided the use is non-natural.

Elements of liability

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

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

Key Term: non-natural use
A use of land that is extraordinary or unusual in the context of the locality and circumstances.

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

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

Worked Example 1.3

A chemical company stores large tanks of toxic waste on its land. Due to a leak, the chemicals seep into neighbouring gardens, killing plants and contaminating the soil. Is the company liable under Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer: Yes. The company brought a dangerous substance onto its land, the use is non-natural, the chemicals escaped, and damage to neighbouring property was foreseeable.

Defences to Rylands v Fletcher

• Act of a stranger: The escape was caused by an unforeseeable act of a third party.
• Act of God: The escape was caused by an unforeseeable natural event.
• Consent: The claimant consented to the accumulation of the dangerous thing.
• Statutory authority: The activity was authorised by statute.
• Default of the claimant: The claimant's own actions caused or contributed to the escape.

Exam Warning

For SQE1, remember that Rylands v Fletcher is a strict liability tort, but not absolute. The claimant must still prove the elements, and certain defences may apply. Personal injury is generally not recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher—focus on property damage.

Distinguishing Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher

While both torts protect interests in land, there are key differences:

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Private nuisance protects against substantial and unreasonable interference with land use or enjoyment.
• Only those with a proprietary interest in land can sue in private nuisance.
• Public nuisance requires interference with rights common to the public and special damage to the claimant.
• The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for escapes from non-natural uses of land.
• Rylands v Fletcher requires accumulation, non-natural use, escape, and foreseeable damage.
• Defences include act of a stranger, act of God, consent, statutory authority, and default of the claimant.
• Remedies include injunctions, damages, and abatement.

Key Terms and Concepts

• private nuisance
• proprietary interest
• unlawful interference
• public nuisance
• Rylands v Fletcher (rule)
• non-natural use
• escape
• strict liability