Nuisance and The Rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER

Question 1

What must a claimant have according to HUNTER V CANARY WHARF?

Answer 1

C must have a proprietary interest in the land that D is affecting by his activities

Question 2

What must the defendant have in a nuisance claim?

Answer 2

Some degree of personal responsibility for the nuisance

Question 3

In what ways can D have some degree of personal responsibility for the nuisance?

Answer 3

He can be the creator of the nuisance, owner of the land or occupier of the land

Question 4

To succeed in nuisance, what does C need to prove?

Answer 4

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

Question 5

What does the case NETWORK RAIL V MORRIS state about the nuisance causing substantial interference?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

What does the case ADAMS V URSELL state about nuisance causing substantial interference?

Answer 6

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

Question 7

What does the case COVENTRY V LAWRENCE state about nuisance causing a substantial interference?

Answer 7

Where the implementation of planning permission changes the nature of the locality, otherwise disruptive activities in that area may cease to be a nuisance

Question 8

What happened in COVENTRY V LAWRENCE?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

What does the case ST HELENS SMELTING V TIPPING state about nuisance?

Answer 9

Where there is physical damage to C’s land, the location of C’s premises is largely irrelevant

Question 10

What does the case CROWN RIVER CRUISES V KIMBOLTON FIREWORKS say about nuisance causing unreasonable interference?

Answer 10

The longer the duration of the interference, the more likely it is that the court will regard it to be unreasonable

Question 11

What does the case HOLLYWOOD SILVER FOX FARM V EMMETT say about nuisance causing unreasonable interference?

Answer 11

Deliberately harmful acts by D will usually be regarded as unreasonable interference

Question 12

What happens if D’s activity has social utility?

Answer 12

The court will be less likely to regard it as unreasonable

Question 13

What defences are available for nuisance?

Answer 13

Statutory authority, defence of prescription, act of a trespasser, consent and contributory negligence

Question 14

What is the defence of prescription?

Answer 14

If D has openly been doing the activity for 20 years without complaint by C, C cannot sue

Question 15

Which case corresponds with consent being available for nuisance?

Answer 15

KIDDLE V CITY BUSINESS PROPERTIES

Question 16

What cant be used as a defence according to ST HELENS SMELTING V TIPPING?

Answer 16

C coming to the nuisance

Question 17

What remedies are available for nuisance?

Answer 17

Prohibitory injunction and damages

Question 18

What case corresponds with the prohibitory injunction?

Answer 18

DE KEYSER’S ROYAL HOTEL V SPICER

Question 19

What is a prohibitory injunction?

Answer 19

The courts order D to stop causing the nuisance completely or within certain hours

Question 20

What can C claim damages for?

Answer 20

Losses that are reasonably foreseeable

Question 21

What is the first element that must be proved to succeed under the rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 21

The thing causing damage had been collected on land occupied or controlled by D

Question 22

What is the second element that must be proved to succeed under the rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 22

It is of a kind that foreseeably will cause harm upon its escape

Question 23

What is the third element that must be proved to succeed under the rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 23

There has been a non-natural use of land

Question 24

What is the fourth element that must be proved to succeed under the rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 24

There has been an escape of the thing

Question 25

What happened in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 25

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

Question 26

What does the case GILES V WALKER state about the first element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 26

The thing must be artificially accumulated on the land, as opposed to being there naturally

Question 27

What does the case SMEATON V ILFORD CORPORATION state about the first element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 27

The thing must be brought on to the land for D’s own purposes, but this does not mean it has to benefit D

Question 28

What does the case MILES V FOREST ROCK GRANITE state about the first element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 28

The thing brought onto the land does not necessarily have to be the thing that escapes and causes harm

Question 29

What does the case HALE V JENNINGS BROS state about the second element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 29

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

Question 30

What does the case TRANSCO V STOCKPORT MBC state about the third element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 30

There will be a non-natural use of land if D’s use of land increases danger to others

Question 31

What does the case CAMBRIDGE WATER V EASTERN COUNTIES LEATHER state about the third element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 31

There will be no non-natural use of land, where D’s use is of a benefit to the community as a whole

Question 32

What does the case READ V J LYONS & CO state about the fourth element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 32

The escape should be from the place D occupies or that is under D’s control, to a place that is outside his control

Question 33

What does the case CAMBRIDGE WATER V EASTERN COUNTIES LEATHER state about the fourth element of RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 33

The escape must cause damage of a kind that is reasonably foreseeable, otherwise the damage will be too remote

Question 34

What are the defences available for RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 34

Contributory negligence, consent, statutory authority or act of a stranger

Question 35

What does the case DUNN V BIRMINGHAM CANAL NAVIGATION CO say about contributory negligence as a defence for the rule in RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 35

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

Question 36

What does the case GREEN V CHELSEA WATERWORKS say about statutory authority as a defence for RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 36

Where the escape of a thing is a direct result of D carrying out a statutory duty, D will not be liable

Question 37

What does the case RICHARDS V LOTHIAN say about an act of a stranger as a defence for RYLANDS V FLETCHER?

Answer 37

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