Nuisance & Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
What is private nuisance?
A use of land which wrongfully interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of neighboring land. This must be substantial and is judged according to the character of the locality
Tort of land, not of people
What does St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping tell us about the type of nuisance actionable?
Where nuisance is in the form of actual physical damage, character of the locality is irrelevant, this only applies where nuisance is sensible personal discomfort (e.g. noise, smell)
What factors can be taken into account when deciding if something amounts to nuisance?
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett, malice of the defendant
St Helen’s Smelting, locality of the nuisance
Halsey v Esso Petroleum, time the nuisance takes place
Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, public utility not relevant
Who can be liable for an action in nuisance?
-The creator of the nuisance
-Someone who continues the nuisance (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan)
-Where the nuisance is adopted and not stopped (Leaky v National Trust)
Who can sue for an action in nuisance?
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Those with a proprietary interest in the land can sue, licensees and family members of tenants could not sue
How will the existence of nuisance be judged?
Nuisance will be judged against the effect on an ordinary person, this is objective rather than subjectively asking if the claimant was effected
Robinson v Kilvert
What is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
A person who for his own purposes brings onto his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is answerable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The use of the land must amount to a non-natural use
How did the case of Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather expand the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
Reasonable foreseeability is a requirement of the tort
The rule is an extension of the law on nuisance therefore it should apply here as well (and due to its nature being strict liability)
What is the most recent case on Rylands v Fletcher that confirmed the law?
Transco Plc v Stockport MBC
Confirmed the rule was still present in English law, said that because the tort is strict liability the mischief and danger test should be stricter
