Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

What is Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 1

It is its own type of nuisance and is a strict liability crime so no MR required due to it being presumed

Question 2

Explain the first requirement of R v F

Answer 2

Accumulation - D must bring hazardous material onto the land and keep it there
If it was already there or naturally occurred there is no liability under R v F
Giles V Walker

Question 3

Explain the second requirement of R v F

Answer 3

Must be likely to cause a nuisance if it escapes - the thing need not to be inherently dangerous but likely to cause damage if it escapes.

Question 4

Explain the third requirement of R v F

Answer 4

Must be an escape from the D’s land. injury inflicted by the accumulation of a hazardous substance on the land itself will not invoke liability - Transco plc v Stockport metropolitan borough council

Question 5

Explain the fourth requirement of R v F

Answer 5

Must be a non natural use of land. The use of land must be ‘extraordinary and unusual’ where it must be both and not just one - British Celanese v Hunt

Question 6

Explain the fifth requirement of R v F

Answer 6

Must not be too remote. Liability is subject to rules on remoteness on how closely related the claimants damage is to what the D did - Weller v Foot

Question 7

Explain the act of a stranger defence

Answer 7

D has complete defence if the escape was caused by the act of a stranger over which D had no control and whose actions could not have been reasonably foreseen - Perry v Kendricks Transport

Question 8

Explain the act of god defence

Answer 8

This has the same meaning as under private nuisance, but there is a different case example - Ribee v Norrie

Question 9

Explain the statutory authority defence

Answer 9

This has the same meaning as under private
nuisance, but there is a different case example -
Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894)

Question 10

Explain the Consent/benefit defence

Answer 10

If C receives a benefit from the thing accumulated, they may be deemed to have consented to its accumulation

Question 11

Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)
Ratio: The escape must be foreseeable and reasonably preventable for a Rylands v Fletcher claim to succeed

Answer 11

Ratio: The escape must be foreseeable and reasonably preventable for a Rylands v Fletcher claim to succeed

Question 12

British Celanese Ltd v AH Hunt Ltd (1969)

Answer 12

Ratio: Rylands v Fletcher applies to activities that are non-natural and result in damage to neighboring properties.

Question 13

Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003)

Answer 13

Ratio: The defendant may be liable under Rylands v Fletcher if the escape of something dangerous or harmful causes damage.

Question 14

Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997)

Answer 14

Ratio: Rylands v Fletcher applies to situations where a defendant’s activities cause damage due to escape of something from their property.