UU��ֱ��

Home / Practical Guidance and Legal Research / Legal Glossary / Rylands v Fletcher

GLOSSARY

Rylands v Fletcher definition

Published by a UU��ֱ�� Environment expert

What does Rylands v Fletcher mean?

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.

Environment

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

Rylands v Fletcher - Legal Definition

View the related practice notes about Rylands v Fletcher

Nuisance and the Rylands v Fletcher rule—common law liability for pollution

Private nuisancePrivate nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. Interference must be unreasonable, and may be caused, eg by water, smoke, smell, fumes, gas, noise, heat or vibrations. Where the defendant has not caused the nuisance, but merely permitted it to continue, then proof of negligence is required. Liability only arises where the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to abate the nuisance once it knew or ought to have known about it.Pollution of ground or surface water that flows through the property of another constitutes a nuisance. In Willis v Derwentside District Council, the council was liable in nuisance for gas escaping not only from its land, but also from gas merely passing through the property in underground pipes.The duty to abate a nuisance is not limited to solving the physical nuisance. In Willis, despite having completed remedial work, the Council continued to be liable until it issued a certificate of completion for the...

Read More

Banking and finance—environmental due diligence and practical ways for lenders to mitigate environmental risks

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...

Read More

Discover our 15 Practice Notes on Rylands v Fletcher

READ MORE

View the related precedents about Rylands v Fletcher

Letter of claim—nuisance (chemical contamination)

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...

Read More

Letter of claim—nuisance (flood)

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...

Read More

Dive into our 2 Precedents related to Rylands v Fletcher

READ MORE

View the related q&as about 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?

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...

Read More

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?

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...

Read More

See the 16 Q&As about Rylands v Fletcher

READ MORE

View the related News about Rylands v Fletcher

Planning weekly highlights—10 November 2022

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.

Read More

Overlapping causes of action in nuisance and negligence prevented summary judgment (Surer v Driver)

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 More

Read the latest 15 News articles on Rylands v Fletcher

READ MORE

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.

READ MORE

Powered by Lexis+^®

Case studies

"A lot of the work that I do is historic-the maximum sentences change at different points of time. It's really complicated and people get it wrong all the time. That's when having a timeline is really useful."

1 High Pavement

Access all documents on Rylands v Fletcher