Nuisance and The Rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER Flashcards
What must a claimant have according to HUNTER V CANARY WHARF?
C must have a proprietary interest in the land that D is affecting by his activities
What must the defendant have in a nuisance claim?
Some degree of personal responsibility for the nuisance
In what ways can D have some degree of personal responsibility for the nuisance?
He can be the creator of the nuisance, owner of the land or occupier of the land
To succeed in nuisance, what does C need to prove?
C must prove that D is doing an activity that causes substantial and unreasonable interference with C’s use or enjoyment of their land and/or causes physical damage to C’s land
What does the case NETWORK RAIL V MORRIS state about the nuisance causing substantial interference?
If C is abnormally sensitive, C will only be able to claim if a person of ordinary sensitivity would suffer substantial interference and provided C suffers a foreseeable kind of harm
What does the case ADAMS V URSELL state about nuisance causing substantial interference?
C will not be able to claim if the location of the premises means it was reasonable to put up with D’s interference. The court will compare D’s use of land with that of all others in the locality to decide if D’s use stands out
What does the case COVENTRY V LAWRENCE state about nuisance causing a substantial interference?
Where the implementation of planning permission changes the nature of the locality, otherwise disruptive activities in that area may cease to be a nuisance
What happened in COVENTRY V LAWRENCE?
Planning permission allowed the construction of a speedway and motorcross stadium meaning the nature of that location changed and neighbours couldn’t complain of nuisance from the stadiums
What does the case ST HELENS SMELTING V TIPPING state about nuisance?
Where there is physical damage to C’s land, the location of C’s premises is largely irrelevant
What does the case CROWN RIVER CRUISES V KIMBOLTON FIREWORKS say about nuisance causing unreasonable interference?
The longer the duration of the interference, the more likely it is that the court will regard it to be unreasonable
What does the case HOLLYWOOD SILVER FOX FARM V EMMETT say about nuisance causing unreasonable interference?
Deliberately harmful acts by D will usually be regarded as unreasonable interference
What happens if D’s activity has social utility?
The court will be less likely to regard it as unreasonable
What defences are available for nuisance?
Statutory authority, defence of prescription, act of a trespasser, consent and contributory negligence
What is the defence of prescription?
If D has openly been doing the activity for 20 years without complaint by C, C cannot sue
Which case corresponds with consent being available for nuisance?
KIDDLE V CITY BUSINESS PROPERTIES
What cant be used as a defence according to ST HELENS SMELTING V TIPPING?
C coming to the nuisance
What remedies are available for nuisance?
Prohibitory injunction and damages
What case corresponds with the prohibitory injunction?
DE KEYSER’S ROYAL HOTEL V SPICER
What is a prohibitory injunction?
The courts order D to stop causing the nuisance completely or within certain hours
What can C claim damages for?
Losses that are reasonably foreseeable
What is the first element that must be proved to succeed under the rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
The thing causing damage had been collected on land occupied or controlled by D
What is the second element that must be proved to succeed under the rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
It is of a kind that foreseeably will cause harm upon its escape
What is the third element that must be proved to succeed under the rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
There has been a non-natural use of land
What is the fourth element that must be proved to succeed under the rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
There has been an escape of the thing
What happened in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
D, a mill owner, hired contractors to create a reservoir on his land to act as a water supply. The contractors failed to block off disused mine shafts. When the reservoir was filled, water flooded neighbouring working mines owned by C. C succeeded because the water was collected on land occupied by D, The large volume would cause damage if it escaped, it was a non-natural use of land and the water escaped
What does the case GILES V WALKER state about the first element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
The thing must be artificially accumulated on the land, as opposed to being there naturally
What does the case SMEATON V ILFORD CORPORATION state about the first element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
The thing must be brought on to the land for D’s own purposes, but this does not mean it has to benefit D
What does the case MILES V FOREST ROCK GRANITE state about the first element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
The thing brought onto the land does not necessarily have to be the thing that escapes and causes harm
What does the case HALE V JENNINGS BROS state about the second element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
It is not the escape that has to be likely, only that damage is reasonably foreseeable if the thing brought onto the land does escape
What does the case TRANSCO V STOCKPORT MBC state about the third element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
There will be a non-natural use of land if D’s use of land increases danger to others
What does the case CAMBRIDGE WATER V EASTERN COUNTIES LEATHER state about the third element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
There will be no non-natural use of land, where D’s use is of a benefit to the community as a whole
What does the case READ V J LYONS & CO state about the fourth element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
The escape should be from the place D occupies or that is under D’s control, to a place that is outside his control
What does the case CAMBRIDGE WATER V EASTERN COUNTIES LEATHER state about the fourth element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
The escape must cause damage of a kind that is reasonably foreseeable, otherwise the damage will be too remote
What are the defences available for RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
Contributory negligence, consent, statutory authority or act of a stranger
What does the case DUNN V BIRMINGHAM CANAL NAVIGATION CO say about contributory negligence as a defence for the rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
If C has good reason to know that their conduct would cause the escape from D’s land and consequent damage to their land, D is not liable
What does the case GREEN V CHELSEA WATERWORKS say about statutory authority as a defence for RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
Where the escape of a thing is a direct result of D carrying out a statutory duty, D will not be liable
What does the case RICHARDS V LOTHIAN say about an act of a stranger as a defence for RYLANDS V FLETCHER?
If an act of a stranger has been the cause of the escape, then D will not be liable, unless C can prove that the act which caused the escape was an act of the kind which the owner could reasonably have foreseen and guarded against
