Tort Week 7 - NUISANCE & RYLANDS v FLETCHER

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Winfield & Jolowicz, Chs 14 & 15 & pp. *792-800; Markesinis & Deakin, pp. 421-461, (413-421 in brief)

*St. Helens Smelting v Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642

*Halsey v Esso [1961] 1 WLR 683

**Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655; [1997] 2 All E.R. 426, HL

*Robinson v Kilvert (1889) 41 Ch D 88

*Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485

Andreae v Selfridge [1938] Ch 1

Laws v Florinplace [1981] 1 All ER 659

Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850

*Southwark LBC v Mills [1999] 3 WLR 939, at 950-951C, 951D-957

Bradford v Pickles [1895] AC 587

*Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 468

Bradford v Pickles [1895] AC 587

Stephens v Anglian Water Authority [1987] 3 All ER 379

Statutory Authority: Allen v Gulf Oil [1981] AC 1001

Relevance of Planning Permission:

Gillingham v Medway [1992] 3 All ER 923; *Wheeler v Saunders [1995] 2 All ER 697 at 704-7, 708-714

**Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655; [1997] 2 All E.R. 426, HL

Pemberton v Southwark LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1672

*Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880

Compare *Hussain v Lancaster City C [1999] 2 WLR 1142 with Lippiatt v South Gloucs. CC [1999] 3 WLR 137

Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC [2000] 2 All ER 705

Mint v Good [1951] 1 KB 517

Defective Premises Act 1972 s.4

Caminer v Northern & London Investment Trust [1951] AC 88

**Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655; [1997] 2 All E.R. 426, HL

*Wagon Mound (2) [1967] 1 AC 617

• Injunction

**Compare Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 with Kennaway v Thompson [1980] 3 All ER 329; 41 CLJ 87

(Damages in lieu) Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 2 All ER 189

Attorney-General v PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169

Tate & Lyle v GLC [1983] 2 AC 509

R v Shorrock [1993] 3 All ER 917 (NB - Criminal case)

Wringe v Cohen [1940] 1 KB 229

Dymond v Pearce [1972] 1 QB 496

Environmental Protection Act 1990, s79 & 80

Newark, 65 LQR 480

Gearty, 48 CLJ 214

*Ogus & Richardson, 36 CLJ 284

Cross (1995) 111 LQR 445

For a historical account of Tipping & Rylands cases see A.W.B. Simpson, Leading Cases, (OUP, 1995) Chs. 7 & 8

*Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Ex. 265; (1868) LR 3 HL 330

Read v Lyons [1947] AC 156

*Cambridge Water v Easter Counties Leather [1994] 1 All ER 53; 110 LQR 406

(interesting comparison with Australia: Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994) 120 ALR 42)

Rigby v Chief Constable of Northants [1985] 2 All ER 985

Perry v Kendricks [1956] 1 WLR 85

Dunne v NW Gas [1964] 2 QB 806

Pearson Report, Vol.1., Ch. 31

*Protection From Harrassment Act 1997

Mason v Levy Autoparts [1967] 2 All ER 62

Strategic guidance: It is a long list. To cope, concentrate on the starred cases… perhaps use a casebook for the rest.

1988 "One of the most difficult questions in the law of nuisance is the extent to which proof of fault on the part of the defendant is essential to liability." (Winfield & Jolowicz). What is the basis of liability in nuisance? What should it be?

Monkfish Hall has been owned by Alvin's family since the Wars of the Roses, and is now owned by Alvin who runs it as an up-market country-house hotel in a rural area. Alvin also owns a golf course, situated between the hotel and a field owned by Brian. Recently, Brian (with planning permission from Monkfish Council) developed his field into a "Rockfest Theme Park" which caters for visitors who want to "relive the spirit of Woodstock". Brian also manufactures organic cakes using water from a spring on his field.

1. Alvin complains that the "Theme Park" has attracted "hippies and God-knows-what" into the area, and can prove that several holiday firms have cancelled their regular bookings because of, in the words of one company, "the fall in the quality of the area. Frankly when genteel people go on holiday they don’t want to be reminded of such things.". Alvin also complains that the smell from the tented-latrines in the theme park is nauseating. Brian replies that this is an essential part of "the genuine 70’s rockfest experience".
2. Moreover, Alvin claims that the noise of Brian’s visitors "jamming" (sometimes 40 people playing electric guitars at once!) wakes some of his elderly residents up during their afternoon naps. Brian arranges the "jamming sessions" between 3p.m until 4p.m., knowing that this is when Alvin’s elderly residents take a nap, because he wants to "get Alvin back for all the trouble he caused during the planning hearings". Whenever Alvin thinks that the noise is "intolerable" he telephones Brian to shout abuse - he has usually been phoning five or six times a week.
3. Brian claims that his spring has been polluted by a potent mole-poison (‘Molekill XX’) used on Alvin's golf course, and that he has had to close his organic cake business because of this (though the water still meets government drinking standards, cakes made with it don’t meet the standards of the Organic Bakers’ Union). Brian’s teenage daughter, Chloe, who worked in the organic cake bakery, has developed a disfiguring skin condition as a result of an allergic reaction to the Molekill XX in the water.

Advise the parties as to their rights and possible remedies.