Law of Torts: Lecture 15 - Nuisance & Rylands v Fletcher
Overview of Lecture Content
Focus of Lecture: Understanding Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Key Topics:
Reception on private nuisance
Defenses related to private nuisance
Remedies available in cases of nuisance
The rule under Rylands v Fletcher
Private Nuisance
Definition: Private nuisance is a tort that involves interference with a person's enjoyment of their land.
Factors Considered by Courts in Nuisance Cases
Unreasonable Use: Always a primary consideration.
Locality: Sometimes considered, applicable only for amenity harm.
Sensitivity of the Claimant: Sometimes considered if relevant, typically in cases of amenity harm. This can include the bad intention of the Defendant.
Standing
Who Can Sue?
Owners of freehold estates.
Leaseholders (citing Hunter v Canary Wharf).
Who Can Be Sued?
The creator or adapter of the nuisance who possesses or controls the property (citing Jalla).
Landlord Liability: Depends on whether the act constituting the nuisance was authorized (citing Coventry v Lawrence).
(Un)reasonable Use of Land
Property Damage vs. Amenity Interference:
Jalla: Property damage was highlighted.
Fearn: Highlighted amenity loss.
Response to Inquiry: When discussing harm, identify whether it pertains to property damage or amenity harm first.
Locality Principle
Referenced in St Helen's Smelting v Tipping:
Locality principle is applicable only when the claimant suffers amenity damage.
Approach to Determining Locality:
Held by the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence: The starting point should be reality, but involves an element of circularity per Lord Neuberger.
Planning permission can change the characterization of a locality, assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Sensitivity of Claimant
Discussed in Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Morris (2004):
Foreseeability of specific damage to a specific claimant is the test.
Case specifics:
Fearn: Claimants were categorized as sensitive users.
Supreme Court in Fearn seemed to reject the sensitivity concept, focusing instead on ordinary use of property.
Malice in Nuisance Cases
Consideration of motive in assessing reasonable use:
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett (1936):
Claimed use was sensitive, but defendant liable due to malice.
Contrast with Bradford Corporation v Pickles (1895):
Motivation was not solely malicious; defendant aimed to compel the corporation's action, complicating malice assessment.
Defences in Private Nuisance
Defenders from Coventry v Lawrence:
Statutory Authority
Defendant did not create the nuisance
Public benefit or utility of the defendant's activity
20 Years Prescription
Note: “Coming to the nuisance” is not a valid defence.
1. Statutory Authority
A legitimate defence involving statutory backing for activities, particularly in infrastructure projects:
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd (1981):
Gulf Oil's authority from legislation to develop an oil refinery; local residents claimed the statute permitted only construction but not operational activities.
Held: Statutory authority is a defence to nuisance claims provided actions are conducted properly and without negligence, aligned with human rights standards (Hatton v UK, 2003).
1. Statutory Authority - Planning Act 2008
Section 152:
Grants statutory authority for developments authorized under its provisions.
Includes projects of national significance like power stations, airports, etc.
Compensation options through compulsory purchase procedures and ‘injurious affection’ as per the Act.
1. Statutory Authority - Planning Permission
Nuanced Perspective:
Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (2012):
A violation of permission likely indicates unreasonableness of that activity but does not imply that following permissions equates to good neighborliness.
Stance in Coventry v Lawrence:
Mere planning permission is often insufficient to aid the defendant in nuisance cases.
In exceptional scenarios, planning might indicate policy changes that cannot be discounted (Lord Carnwath).
2. Defendant Did Not Create the Nuisance
Overview: Strict liability tort unless the nuisance's creation is absent; fault may come into play under certain conditions.
Courts apply a ‘measured duty of care’, only establishing liability when fault exists in failing to correct the nuisance.
Key Cases
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather Plc:
No foreseeable nuisance existed at the time of the structure's creation.
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940):
A third-party pipe led to flooding; defendant did not adequately maintain it.
Held: The defendant’s inaction constituted unreasonable behavior, making them liable.
Goldman v Hargrave (1967):
Poor maintenance led to bushfire risk; held liable under a measured duty of care depending on knowledge and ability to foresee consequences.
Anthony v Coal Authority (2006):
Long-term neglect of a spoil tip led to a fire that impacted properties; the court highlighted unreasonable land use due to foreseeable danger.
3. Public Benefit or Utility
Discussed in Dennis v Ministry of Defence (2003):
RAF jet activities caused property disturbances and devaluations.
While public benefit was noted, the activities were still deemed a nuisance, and damages were awarded despite the lack of injunction.
Clarified in Fearn v Tate Gallery:
Public benefit does not absolve liability. Nuisance acts against real property rights are still actionable.
4. 20 Years Prescription
If nuisance activity persists for over 20 years, that usage could serve as a valid defence (citing Sturges v Bridgman, 1879).
The 20-year rule applies from when the activity transitions into a nuisance, not from its start (contextually illustrated by Coventry v Lawrence).
Exception: Though residents can claim nuisance, if ongoing for 20 years, defendants may not be liable.
5. Coming to the Nuisance
Non-Defence: C’s arrival does not exempt D from liability; discussed in Coventry v Lawrence.
Specifically stated that if C utilizes the property for the same purposes as predecessors prior to claimed nuisance, they are not excluded from asserting the nuisance.
Remedies for Nuisance
Default Remedy: Injunction, albeit with exceptions.
Remedies can be awarded primarily in forms of injunctions or possibly damages under specific criteria (citing Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co, 1895).
Shelfer Criteria for Damages:
Option for damages over injunction if:
Injury to legal right is minimal,
Capable of monetary estimation,
Adequately compensated by small payments,
Imposing injunction would be oppressive.
Notably, the relevance of Shelfer criteria has diminished post-Coventry v Lawrence decisions.
Updated Position on Shelfer Criteria
Lord Neuberger emphasized:
Application of criteria must not restrict the court's discretion.
Generally, if criteria are met, an injunction would typically be denied unless weighed against public interest which also carries legal implications.
Planning permissions can substantiate claims for public benefit.
Types of Damages
Material Damage to Property:
Damages reflect repair costs or property devaluation.
Loss of Amenities:
Quantified by how the nuisance affects amenity values; claims for personal injury are non-recoverable (citing Hunter v Canary Wharf).
Actions Under Rylands v Fletcher
Strict Liability: Concept wherein the claimant doesn’t need to establish a continuing nuisance.
Summary of Case: Rylands v Fletcher (1868):
Involved liability concerning escapes from an occupier's land.
A reservoir built on D's land led to flooding via disused mines, impacting neighboring properties.
Legal Principle Established: D responsible for ensuring collection of potentially dangerous substances stays contained.
Necessary Elements for Establishing Rylands v Fletcher Actions
Creation of Mischief on D’s Land:
D introduces something harmful to their property.
Escape of Substance:
The substance must escape D’s land.
'Non-Natural Use' of Land:
The activity should be an unusual use leading to increased perils for others.
Foreseeable Damage:
Damage must be a foreseeable outcome of that escape.
1. Mischief Requirement
Discussed in Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003):
A leaking gas pipe resulted in significant repairs; ruling clarified that mere danger does not meet the threshold for Rylands claims.
2. Escape Requirement
Evaluated in Read v Lyons (1947):
An explosion in D's munitions factory was not classified as an escape; Contrast: Stannard v Gore (2012):
Fire from tyres on D's property affecting neighbor; held no escape occurred.
3. 'Non-Natural Use' of Land
Defined by Rickards v Lothian (1913):
Non-natural use implies increased risk not typical for general land use.
Further illustrated in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994):
Pollutants affecting nearby wells were accepted as risky and therefore as non-natural use.
The case established that what constitutes non-natural is subject to interpretation based on the extraordinary risks presented.
4. Foreseeable Damage of Relevant Type
Clarified that it is the damage, not the escape, which must be foreseeable:
Courts ask whether the damage is a likely consequence of a recognized escape scenario.
Defences under Rylands v Fletcher
Types of Defences:
Statutory authority
Contributory negligence
Consent
Special Defences Specific to Rylands v Fletcher:
Fault of the Claimant
Ponting v Noakes (1894): Claimant’s horse’s death due to consuming poisonous leaves was deemed their fault.
Escape by Unforeseeable Act of Stranger
Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd (1956): D not liable for an explosion initiated by unknown actors.
Rickards v Lothian (1913): Flooding caused by third-party actions led to D’s non-liability.
Escape due to ‘Act of God’
Nichols v Marsland (1876): Extraordinary rainfall leading to failure of ponds absolved D from liability.
Contrast with Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway (1917), where D faced liability despite extreme weather contributing.
Further Reading
Recommended Texts:
Steele J, Tort Law: Text, Cases and Materials (OUP 2022), Chapter 11
Horsey & Rackley, Chapter 18
Relevant Case Law:
Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13
Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4
Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co [2023] UKSC 16
Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 80
The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd No. 2 [2024] UKSC 22