Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher - Who can sue and be sued in private nuisance

Learning Outcomes

After reading this article, you will be able to identify who has standing to bring a private nuisance claim, determine who can be held liable for private nuisance, and explain the strict liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher. You will also be able to distinguish between claimants and defendants in nuisance actions and apply these principles to SQE1-style scenarios.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the legal rules governing who can sue and be sued in private nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. In your revision, focus on:

• the requirement for a proprietary interest to sue in private nuisance
• who can be held liable for private nuisance (creators, occupiers, landlords)
• the elements and scope of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
• the relationship between nuisance and strict liability for escapes
• relevant defences and limitations

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 is eligible to bring a claim in private nuisance?
   1. Any occupier of land
   2. Any person affected by the nuisance
   3. Only those with a proprietary interest in the land
   4. Any family member living at the property
2. Which of the following may be liable for private nuisance?
   1. The creator of the nuisance
   2. The occupier who adopts or continues a nuisance
   3. A landlord who authorises a nuisance
   4. All of the above
3. What is a key requirement for liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
   1. The nuisance must be ongoing
   2. The defendant must have made a non-natural use of land
   3. The claimant must suffer personal injury
   4. The defendant must be negligent

4. True or false? A guest staying at a property can sue in private nuisance if they are disturbed by noise from a neighbouring factory.

Introduction

Private nuisance is a tort that protects the use and enjoyment of land from unlawful interference. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a related principle imposing strict liability for escapes of dangerous things from land. For SQE1, you must know who can sue and be sued in private nuisance, and how the rule in Rylands v Fletcher applies.

Who Can Sue in Private Nuisance?

To bring a claim in private nuisance, a claimant must have a proprietary interest in the affected land. This means the right to exclusive possession, such as a freehold owner, leaseholder, or tenant in occupation.

Key Term: proprietary interest
The legal right to exclusive possession of land, such as ownership or a lease. Only those with a proprietary interest can sue in private nuisance.

Family members, guests, or lodgers without such an interest cannot sue, even if they are affected by the nuisance.

Worked Example 1.1

Can a lodger bring a claim in private nuisance for smoke from a neighbour’s bonfire?

Answer: No. A lodger does not have a proprietary interest in the property and therefore lacks standing to sue in private nuisance.

Who Can Be Sued in Private Nuisance?

Liability for private nuisance is not limited to the person who creates the nuisance. The following may be sued:

• The creator of the nuisance (who causes the interference)
• The occupier of land who adopts or continues a nuisance, even if created by someone else (such as a trespasser or predecessor)
• A landlord, but only if they authorise the nuisance or knew about it at the time of letting and it was virtually certain to occur

Key Term: occupier
A person with sufficient control over land, such as an owner or tenant in possession. An occupier may be liable for a nuisance they adopt or continue.

Key Term: creator of the nuisance
The person who directly causes the interference with the claimant’s use or enjoyment of land.

Key Term: landlord liability
A landlord may be liable for nuisance only if they authorised it, participated in it, or let property knowing a nuisance was certain to occur.

Worked Example 1.2

A tenant’s visitor builds a bonfire that causes smoke to drift onto a neighbour’s land. The tenant knows about the bonfire but does nothing. Who may be liable?

Answer: The visitor (creator) and the tenant (occupier who adopts or continues the nuisance) may both be liable. The landlord is not liable unless they authorised the bonfire or knew it would occur.

The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things brought onto land for a non-natural use.

Key Term: Rylands v Fletcher rule
A strict liability principle: a person who brings onto their land something likely to cause harm if it escapes is liable for damage caused by its escape, even without negligence.

Key Term: non-natural use
A use of land that is extraordinary, unusual, or increases danger to others, not ordinary domestic or business use.

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

To succeed under Rylands v Fletcher, the claimant must show:

1. The defendant brought something onto their land
2. The use was non-natural
3. The thing escaped to the claimant’s land
4. The escape caused foreseeable damage of the relevant type

Only those with a proprietary interest in the affected land can sue under Rylands v Fletcher. The defendant is usually the occupier or person in control of the land from which the escape occurred.

Worked Example 1.3

A factory stores chemicals in large tanks. Due to a leak, chemicals escape and damage a neighbour’s crops. The neighbour is a tenant farmer. Can the tenant sue, and who is liable?

Answer: Yes, the tenant can sue because they have a proprietary interest. The factory owner (occupier) is liable under Rylands v Fletcher for the escape of chemicals from a non-natural use.

Defences and Limitations

Certain defences may defeat or limit liability in private nuisance and under Rylands v Fletcher:

• Consent by the claimant
• Statutory authority (if the activity is authorised by law)
• Act of God (extraordinary natural events)
• Act of a stranger (for Rylands v Fletcher, if the escape was caused by a third party over whom the defendant had no control)
• Contributory negligence (may reduce damages)

Some arguments are not valid defences:

• Coming to the nuisance (claimant moved to the nuisance)
• Public benefit (the usefulness of the defendant’s activity does not excuse liability)

Exam Warning

For SQE1, remember that only those with a proprietary interest can sue in private nuisance or under Rylands v Fletcher. Family members or guests cannot bring a claim, even if affected.

Summary

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Only those with a proprietary interest in land can sue in private nuisance or under Rylands v Fletcher.
• The creator of the nuisance, the occupier who adopts or continues it, and a landlord who authorises it may be sued in private nuisance.
• Under Rylands v Fletcher, strict liability applies for escapes from non-natural use of land.
• Defences include consent, statutory authority, act of God, and act of a stranger (for Rylands v Fletcher).
• Coming to the nuisance and public benefit are not valid defences.

Key Terms and Concepts

• proprietary interest
• occupier
• creator of the nuisance
• landlord liability
• Rylands v Fletcher rule
• non-natural use
• escape