Private nuisance (unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land and the relevant factors) and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (strict liability for the escape of a dangerous thing brought onto land in a non-natural use).

What this dot point is asking

OCR Component 2 Section B requires you to know two land-based torts: private nuisance (an unreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of their land) and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (a form of strict liability for the escape of a dangerous thing brought onto land). The skill is to apply the elements of each to a scenario for AO2.

The answer

Private nuisance

Whether an interference is a nuisance turns on its reasonableness, judged by:

• Locality. The character of the neighbourhood: what is reasonable in an industrial area may be a nuisance in a quiet residential one (Sturges v Bridgman), though locality is irrelevant where there is physical damage (St Helen's Smelting v Tipping).
• Duration and frequency. A continuing or repeated interference is more likely to be a nuisance; a single, short event rarely is (Crown River Cruises).
• Sensitivity. An abnormally sensitive claimant or use is not protected if an ordinary use would not be affected (Robinson v Kilvert), though the position has softened (Network Rail v Morris).
• Social utility. A socially useful activity may weigh against finding a nuisance, but does not licence unreasonable interference.
• Malice. A deliberate intention to harm the claimant tips the balance towards nuisance (Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett).

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) imposes strict liability (the claimant need not prove negligence) for harm caused by an escape. There are four requirements:

1. The defendant brings onto and accumulates on their land something likely to do mischief if it escapes (water, chemicals, fire).
2. The use of land is non-natural, meaning some special, extraordinary or industrial use, not an ordinary domestic one (Transco v Stockport MBC).
3. The thing escapes from the defendant's land.
4. The escape causes damage of a reasonably foreseeable type (Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather added the foreseeability-of-harm requirement).

Examples in context

A strong answer applies the right elements to each part of the scenario and concludes on each.

Try this

Q1. Explain the four requirements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. [12 marks]

• What the marker wants. Precise AO1: a bringing and accumulation of something likely to do mischief; a non-natural use of land (Transco); an escape; and damage of a reasonably foreseeable type (Cambridge Water). Note it is strict liability.

Q2. A homeowner runs a noisy late-night business from a converted garage in a quiet street, deliberately timing the worst noise to annoy a neighbour with whom they are in dispute. Advise on liability in private nuisance. [20 marks]

• Cue. An AO2 application: weigh locality (a quiet residential street, Sturges v Bridgman), duration and timing, and especially malice (Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett), concluding that the deliberate, repeated late-night noise is likely an unreasonable interference and so a nuisance.