Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher: private nuisance (unlawful interference with the use and enjoyment of land, the factors and defences), public nuisance, and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (a non-natural use, the escape of a dangerous thing and foreseeable damage).

What this dot point is asking

Eduqas tort requires you to know nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher: private nuisance (unlawful interference with the use and enjoyment of land, the relevant factors and defences), public nuisance, and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (a non-natural use, the escape of a dangerous thing and foreseeable damage). The skill is to apply each to a scenario (AO2) and to evaluate them (AO3).

The answer

Private nuisance

The court decides reasonableness by weighing factors: the character of the locality (St Helens Smelting v Tipping), the duration, frequency and time of the interference, the sensitivity of the claimant (abnormal sensitivity is not protected, Robinson v Kilvert), and any malice (a deliberate intent to harm makes conduct unreasonable, Christie v Davey; Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett). Planning permission does not legalise a nuisance but may alter the locality's character (Coventry v Lawrence).

Public nuisance and defences

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a form of strict liability (no need to prove negligence). The elements are: the defendant brings onto and keeps on the land something likely to do mischief if it escapes (here, water in a reservoir); the use of the land is non-natural (a special, extraordinary use bringing increased danger, not an ordinary use); the thing escapes from the defendant's land; and the damage is of a reasonably foreseeable type (Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather added the foreseeability requirement). In Transco v Stockport MBC the House of Lords confined the rule to exceptional cases of non-natural use carrying a recognised risk of danger if the thing escapes, treating it as a sub-species of nuisance. Defences include an act of a stranger, an act of God, the claimant's own fault, consent, and statutory authority.

Examples in context

A strong answer treats ongoing interference as nuisance and a one-off escape as Rylands, applying each set of elements.

Try this

Q1. Explain the factors a court considers in deciding whether there is an actionable private nuisance. [10 marks]

• What the marker wants. Precise AO1: the locality (St Helens Smelting), the duration, frequency and time, the claimant's sensitivity (Robinson v Kilvert), malice (Christie v Davey), and the rule that planning permission does not authorise a nuisance (Coventry v Lawrence).

Q2. A reservoir built on a farm bursts and floods a neighbour's mine. Advise the neighbour on a claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. [20 marks]

• Cue. An AO2 application (the facts of Rylands itself): water brought onto and kept on the land, a non-natural use, an escape, and foreseeable flood damage (Cambridge Water); strict liability applies subject to defences such as act of God, so the neighbour can recover.