Unit 6 – M2 (2)
In this assignment, I have been asked by Ramondo Chesners to give legal advice in this matter
regarding whether the neighbours in the briefs could claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and
whether Carl may have any defences.
In the first brief, it is about Ned Stark’s Goat Farm and I will identify who the claimants are in this
case. A claimant can be anyone who has the use of land and has been affected by the interference.
In this case, the claimants are the Lannister family who are a married couple who lives the closest to
them in the farm. Ned Stark will be the defendant as he has created the nuisance and is the occupier
and owner of the goat farm.
The key issue for the court will be whether there has been unreasonable use of land by the
defendant. In deciding this, the courts must consider the six factors which are locality, the duration
of the interference and the seriousness of the interference. The next three factors are the sensitivity
of the claimant, any malice shown by either party and the state of the defendant’s land.
The following factor that will be relevant in this case will be the duration of the interference. This is
where the interference of the activity and cause must be continuous and not a one off. Even if a
nuisance is temporary, it can be regarded as a nuisance if the interference occurs at a time and is of
a kind that is unacceptable. This was seen in the case of De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd
1914. The claimant could successfully claim in nuisance as it is temporary, but the interference was
unacceptable due to putting fear in Sansa.
Now to consider whether Mr Stark might have any defences to the Lannisters’ claim.
Ned could plead the defence which is called having local authority planning permission to continue
building construction. This means that there wouldn’t be any actionable nuisance as planning
permissions have been already granted to him. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the Lannister’s
could claim in nuisance against Ned but if they did, he could successfully defend it.
Now to consider whether there could be a claim against Carl Drogo under the rule in Rylands v
Fletcher. There is a claim against Carl Drogo’s in Rylands v Fletcher by the claimant Ramsay Bolton.
The claimant in this matter will be Ramsay Bolton.
The first issue is whether Carl has brought something onto his land. Due to the freak storm, the
cannot be any liability for something that naturally accumulates on land. This was seen in the case of
Ellison v Ministry of Defence 1997. The second issue is whether Carl has made ‘non-natural’ use of
his land. This is where if the defendant makes unnatural use of his land and in doing so, something
escapes and causes damage then it will be the defendant’s as he was taking a risk in using his land.
In this case, it seems to suggest that unnatural requires something quite extraordinary. Generally,
things associated with a domestic use of land will not be considered unnatural, even if it’s potentially
dangerous. In regarding Carl, due to a leakage the fuel ignited which caused considerable damage
the claimant’s fence. He will be held for it as this was done under his ordinary and domestic use of
his land.
Thirdly, courts will look at whether the thing D brought onto their land was likely to cause mischief if
it escaped. If the liquid fuel escaped, it would’ve caused damage either way which would’ve been
foreseeable.
In this assignment, I have been asked by Ramondo Chesners to give legal advice in this matter
regarding whether the neighbours in the briefs could claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and
whether Carl may have any defences.
In the first brief, it is about Ned Stark’s Goat Farm and I will identify who the claimants are in this
case. A claimant can be anyone who has the use of land and has been affected by the interference.
In this case, the claimants are the Lannister family who are a married couple who lives the closest to
them in the farm. Ned Stark will be the defendant as he has created the nuisance and is the occupier
and owner of the goat farm.
The key issue for the court will be whether there has been unreasonable use of land by the
defendant. In deciding this, the courts must consider the six factors which are locality, the duration
of the interference and the seriousness of the interference. The next three factors are the sensitivity
of the claimant, any malice shown by either party and the state of the defendant’s land.
The following factor that will be relevant in this case will be the duration of the interference. This is
where the interference of the activity and cause must be continuous and not a one off. Even if a
nuisance is temporary, it can be regarded as a nuisance if the interference occurs at a time and is of
a kind that is unacceptable. This was seen in the case of De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd
1914. The claimant could successfully claim in nuisance as it is temporary, but the interference was
unacceptable due to putting fear in Sansa.
Now to consider whether Mr Stark might have any defences to the Lannisters’ claim.
Ned could plead the defence which is called having local authority planning permission to continue
building construction. This means that there wouldn’t be any actionable nuisance as planning
permissions have been already granted to him. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the Lannister’s
could claim in nuisance against Ned but if they did, he could successfully defend it.
Now to consider whether there could be a claim against Carl Drogo under the rule in Rylands v
Fletcher. There is a claim against Carl Drogo’s in Rylands v Fletcher by the claimant Ramsay Bolton.
The claimant in this matter will be Ramsay Bolton.
The first issue is whether Carl has brought something onto his land. Due to the freak storm, the
cannot be any liability for something that naturally accumulates on land. This was seen in the case of
Ellison v Ministry of Defence 1997. The second issue is whether Carl has made ‘non-natural’ use of
his land. This is where if the defendant makes unnatural use of his land and in doing so, something
escapes and causes damage then it will be the defendant’s as he was taking a risk in using his land.
In this case, it seems to suggest that unnatural requires something quite extraordinary. Generally,
things associated with a domestic use of land will not be considered unnatural, even if it’s potentially
dangerous. In regarding Carl, due to a leakage the fuel ignited which caused considerable damage
the claimant’s fence. He will be held for it as this was done under his ordinary and domestic use of
his land.
Thirdly, courts will look at whether the thing D brought onto their land was likely to cause mischief if
it escaped. If the liquid fuel escaped, it would’ve caused damage either way which would’ve been
foreseeable.
