"The forms and precedents section is essential so that I can quickly and easily look up provisions to include in templates or bespoke project contracts."
RWE
Access all documents on Rylands v Fletcher
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher creates a strict liability cause of action for foreseeable damage caused by escapes occasioned by non-natural use of land.
There have been a number of attempts to use the rule in respect of contamination, on the basis that where a person who, for his own purposes, brings onto his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it were to escape, and it does escape and the occurrence of damage as a result of the escape was reasonably foreseeable, he will be prima facie liable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. Liability under the rule is strict, and it is no defence that the thing escaped without the defendant's wilful act, default or neglect. Nonetheless it has seldom been successfully applied to ground or water pollution cases.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
Private nuisanceRelevance of private nuisance in modern lawNotwithstanding the quite complex level of environmental regulation, private nuisance (along with other torts such as negligence and trespass) continues to play an important part in modern environmental law. This is unsurprising in a common law jurisdiction where the judiciary has a central role in the constitution. Also, some environmental issues fall outside the regulatory regimes. For instance, the statutory nuisance regime under Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) only covers those environmental nuisances listed in EPA 1990, s 79(1) but if the environmental harm has abated there could well remain a justifiable claim in damages for past nuisance which is not available under the statutory environmental protection systems. The tort of private nuisance is also important because recent legislation has, following earlier patterns of legislative reform, continued to adopt the meaning and definition of common law nuisance in for example the Police, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PSCA 2022) but also in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and...
Banking and finance—environmental due diligence and practical ways for lenders to mitigate environmental risks Why are lenders concerned about environmental risk? The ever growing number of environmental laws has affected the way that lenders perceive environmental risk and has generally given rise to a more stringent approach. Lenders are concerned about environmental risk for a number of reasons: • it can reduce the credit-worthiness of a borrower or guarantor • it can divert the cashflows on a finance project • it can negatively affect the value of the lender’s security • it can create direct liability for the lender (civil, criminal, requirements to remediate or comply with enforcement notices), and • there can also be reputational risks in lending to businesses that are seen as being 'dirty', particularly given the trend towards environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors where a range of mechanisms and principles are fomenting responsible business practices These risks could come about in situations where a borrower or other obligor breaches environmental...
Discover our 15 Practice Notes on Rylands v Fletcher
Letter of claim—nuisance (chemical contamination) [ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS] FAO [RELEVANT NAME] [NAME OF DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANT’S SOLICITOR IF KNOWN] [ADDRESS LINE 1] [ADDRESS LINE 2] [POSTCODE] [DATE] Dear [insert organisation name] [PROSPECTIVE CLAIMANT’S NAME] AND [PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANT’S NAME] Introduction [We write further to our letter dated [insert date] OR We write further to your letter dated [insert date]]. [As you know, we OR We] act on behalf of [insert client’s full name], whose address is [insert full address]. This is our client’s letter of claim sent in accordance with the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols of the Civil Procedure Rules (the Practice Direction), a copy of which is enclosed for your ease of reference. We draw your attention to the final section of this letter, which sets out the deadline by which your response is required, and the consequences of failing to respond properly within that time. [Your client should notify their insurer of this claim immediately. We would be...
Letter of claim—nuisance (flood) [ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS] FAO [RELEVANT NAME] [NAME OF DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANT’S SOLICITOR IF KNOWN] [ADDRESS LINE 1] [ADDRESS LINE 2] [POSTCODE] [DATE] Dear [insert organisation name] [PROSPECTIVE CLAIMANT’S NAME] AND [PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANT’S NAME] Introduction [We write further to our letter dated [insert date] OR We write further to your letter dated [insert date]]. [As you know, we OR We] act on behalf of [insert client’s full name], whose address is [insert full address]. This is our client’s letter of claim sent in accordance with the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols of the Civil Procedure Rules (the Practice Direction), a copy of which is enclosed for your ease of reference. We draw your attention to the final section of this letter which sets out the deadline by which your response is required, and the consequences of failing to respond properly within that time. [Your client should notify their insurer of this claim immediately. We would be grateful...
Dive into our 2 Precedents related to Rylands v Fletcher
What obligations does an occupier of land have to a neighbour where Japanese knotweed has spread from their land to neighbouring land? An occupier of land could face liability for the spread of Japanese knotweed to neighbouring land in a number of ways, including: • under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981), which makes it an offence to plant or cause Japanese knotweed to grow • under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which imposes a duty of care on people dealing with controlled waste (Japanese knotweed), to take reasonable steps to keep that waste safe • through a claim for private for private nuisance For more information, see Practice Notes: Japanese knotweed—legal framework and Japanese knotweed—management, which also cover the amendments to the WCA 1981, added by the Infrastructure Act 2015, concerning Japanese knotweed and species control agreements and orders. Private nuisance This Q&A concerns the spread of Japanese knotweed to neighbouring land and so it involves a focus...
Rats are nesting in a service yard area which is outside the tenant’s demise, but over which they have rights, but have not quite got into the property. The landlord retains the service yard and is under an express obligation to keep the service yard in good condition/repair. Whose responsibility is it to deal with the infestation and can a tenant claim nuisance over land it only has rights over rather than land which it occupies? It would appear that the liability for such an issue may fall to the landlord/concurrent tenant or tenant depending on various factors including how the rats have accessed the property, eg was it through disrepair which may make it the landlord’s/concurrent tenant’s responsibility or neglect of the property which may make it the tenant’s responsibility, and where the nest is currently located. Local authority intervention—prevention of damage by Pests Act 1949 Depending on the severity of the infestation, it may be appropriate for the local authority to become involved. Section 3(1) of...
See the 17 Q&As about Rylands v Fletcher
This week's edition of Planning weekly highlights includes: a Court of Appeal decision finding the definition of gypsies and travellers in national policy to be discriminatory, High Court decisions on apparent bias, the interpretation of local plan policies, who needs to be consulted for works to kerbs, changes to the local land charges rules to give effect to conservation covenants as local land charges, and news that 69 additional local planning authorities have been added to the new planning appeals service.
Property Disputes analysis: The claimant alleged negligence and nuisance by the adjoining homeowner, claiming that the defendant’s negligence and nuisance caused both physical damage and interference with the reasonable enjoyment of the claimant’s property. The High Court examined when a cause of action is complete for both torts, and found that where they had been interwoven it was not possible to give judgment without a full trial. Written by William Hanbury, barrister with the assistance of Jack Scott, pupil barrister, both at Exchange Chambers.
Read the latest 15 News articles on Rylands v Fletcher
**Trials are provided to all ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234