Public and Private Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

Different types of interferences with the land for private nuisance

Answer 1

• emanating onto the land
• encroahing on the land
• obstructing
• affronting (mental distress)

Question 2

St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) - private nuisance

Answer 2

When nuisance in the form of physical damage to property is concerned, the character of the locality is irrelevant to determining what amounts to reasonable use of property
The character of the locality is only relevant when nuisance was in the form of sensible personal discomfort.

Facts:
* C bought a property in a factory district
* Months later, D started smelting works on it’s property, which was a mile and a half away from Cs home
* C said that the fumes from Ds factory which resulted from the smelting, had caused damage to his trees and shrubs on his land
* C sued D for nuisance
* The house of Lords held that D was liable to C in nuisance for the damage to the trees/shrubs

(emanation onto the land)

Question 3

Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] - private nuisance

Answer 3

Facts:
* Cs were residents who complained that the erection of the Canary Wharf Tower was interfering with their TV reception and the construction created excessive dust
* Many of the Cs were just licensees without title to the properties they stayed in (children, spouses, employees)
* House of Lords dismissed the appeal on the grounds that interference with TV reception isn’t actionable under nuisance and that licencees have no action as nuisance is a tort to land

obstruction of TV signal

Question 4

Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895] - private nuisance

Answer 4

Facts: Water percolated under the defendant’s land through undefined channels, and he obstructed it, preventing it from reaching the claimants’ reservoirs. His motives were unclear—possibly malice or an attempt to pressure them into buying his land or paying a fee. The claimants’ lawsuit failed because they had no legal right to water flowing through undefined channels under the defendant’s land, regardless of his reasons for blocking it.

• While people have a right to water flow over their land if there is a defined channel/stream, but there is no right to waterflow in undefined channels underneath your neighbour’s land.
• obstruction

Question 5

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940) - private nuisance

Answer 5

Facts: the defendants owned land with a ditch that Middlesex County Council unlawfully converted into a culvert without permission or proper safeguards. When the culvert later blocked, it caused flooding on the claimant’s property. The House of Lords held the defendants liable as occupiers, despite the Council’s trespass and negligence.

• Liability of occupiers for omissions - An occupier is liable if he continues adopts the nuisance created by a third party

Question 6

Leakey v National Trust [1980] - private nuisance

Answer 6

Facts:
* Cs house was at the bottom of a mound owned by D (National Trust)
* A crack formed in the mound and C drew Ds attention to it, but D said that they had no responsibility for what was a natural process
* After a few weeks the earth from the mound slid into Cs home
* C claimed damages in nuisance and and orders for abatement
* House of lords held that D was liable in nuisance as the work required to abate the erosion had not gone beyond D’s financial or other capacities
highlighted that an occupier owes a duty of care to his neighbours in relation to hazards, whether they are natural or man made

Question 7

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] - private nuisance/ rule in Rylands

Answer 7

Facts: D, a tannery, used PCE, which accumulated underground from repeated small spills. The PCE was carried by groundwater to C’s borehole miles away, polluting it. C sued under Rylands v Fletcher. D argued no liability, as the damage wasn’t foreseeable. HL held that there wadenied damages under Rylands and nuisance, ruling the pollution was not reasonably foreseeable when PCE was initially stored. However, the Court of Appeal’s injunction against further spillage (nuisance) was upheld.

• need reasonable forseeability of damage if an escape occurs to establishish damage in Rylands

Question 8

Rylands v Fletcher [1866]

Answer 8

Facts: Ds hired contractors to build a dam on their land, unaware it was constructed over disused mine shafts connected to C’s mines. The reservoir burst, flooding C’s mines. C sued for damages.

Established a new tort, similar to nuisance
The required elements of the tort:
* In the course of ‘non-natural use’ of the land,
* the defendant brings onto his land and collects and keeps there,
* something likely to do mischief if it escapes;
* it does escape,
* and causes damage of a foreseeable kind.