TORT LAW EXAM REVIEW
QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT
DETAILED ANSWERS
What forms of interference will not be protected? Cases. - Answer- • A view (Fearn and
other v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery)
• Light
• Television reception (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
Protection of offensive behaviour? Case. - Answer- • Courts are prepared to protect
offensive behaviour, affecting the character of the neighbourhood
• Thompson-Schwab v Costaki (1956): running a brothel in a respectable residential
area of London amounted to nuisance
What 5 factors will be considered in deciding the unreasonableness of the interference?
- Answer- • The duration of interference - continuous, at unreasonable hours; exception:
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks - 20-minute firework amounted to
private nuisance
• The sensitivity of the claimant - if the claimant is particularly sensitive, the activity may
not be a private nuisance
Robinson v Kilvert (1889): the brown paper was particularly delicate and the heat from
the basement would not have dried out normal paper
However, the court is moving to a general test of foreseeability Network Rail
Infrastructure v Morris (2004): the use of amplified guitars was abnormally sensitive
equipment, and the nuisance was not foreseeable
• Locality - purely residential/partly residential and partly commercial or industrial/town
or country/has changed in character over time
• Malice - a deliberately harmful act = unreasonable behaviour, nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936) - shooting to frighten the animals, so they
would not breed, unreasonable act and private nuisance
• Whether the social benefit outweighs the private benefit
Miller v Jackson (1977): recreational purposes > claimant's use and enjoyment of the
land
Who can be sued in private nuisance claim? - Answer- • The person who causes the
nuisance, or their successors in title Bybrook Barn Garden Centre v Kent County
Council (2001) - the culvert, which had overflowed, causing damage to the claimant's
land originally been constructed by the Council's predecessor
• The person who is causing or allowing the nuisance Tetley v Chitty (1986) a local
authority allowed go-kart racing on its land
• Occupier that adopts the nuisance Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan (1940)
,• The nuisance is the result of natural causes which the D is aware of but fails to deal
with Leakey v National Trust (1980) Ds failed to prevent the slippage which they were
aware of
Defences for private nuisance claim? - Answer- • 20 years without complaints =
prescriptive right to continue
Sturges v Bridgeman (1879)
• Statutory authority (Allen v Gulf Oil Refinery 1981) - authorised refinery
Is moving to the nuisance a defence? Cases. - Answer- 1) Not a defence
2) • Sturges v Bridgeman (1879)
• Coventry v Lawrence (2014) - if the C uses their property for the same purposes as
their predecessor, moving to the nuisance is also not a defence
Can local authority permission be a defence? - Answer- • Yes, unless it changes the
character of the neighbourhood
• Wheeler v Saunders (1996): the effect of granting a planning permission to expand the
pig farm was not to change the character of the neighbourhood
In which cases damages would be more appropriate remedy? - Answer- • Planning
permission
• The public interest, e.g. employees losing their jobs
What are the remedies for private nuisance? - Answer- • Injunction - Kennaway v
Thompson (1981) limit the use of the lake, close to the claimant's house
Can also be positive in nature, e.g. install a filter
• Abatement - Lemmon v Webb (1894) - claimant could chop down the overhanging
branches from his own land
• Damages - Coventry v Lawrence (2014)
What is the strict liability tort? - Answer- The claimant does not have to prove that the
defendant was at fault
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) summary of the case? - Answer- Mill owner hired contractors
to create a reservoir to act as a water supply for the mill. The contractors negligently
failed to block off the disused mineshafts that were uncovered during excavations.
Those shafts were connected to other mineworks on adjoining land, belonging to the
claimant. When the reservoir was filled, water flooded the neighbouring mines. The
defendant, Rylands, was liable.
Who can bring a claim in Rylands v Fletcher? Cases? - Answer- Transco plc v
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) - proprietary interest in land by claimant
Who will a defendant be in Rylands v Fletcher claim? - Answer- Owner or occupier of
the land who satisfies four ingredients of tort (Viscount Simon's test in Read v Lyons). It
, is assumed that the defendant must have some control over the land on which the
material is stored
Four elements of Rylands v Fletcher? Cases. - Answer- 1) A 'thing' is brought onto land
and is being accumulated/stored: if naturally present = no liability (Giles v Walker 1890 -
weeds spread onto neighbouring land; Ellison v Ministry of Defence 1997 - rainwater
that accumulated naturally)
2) The 'thing' is likely to cause mischief or damage if it escapes: Test for foreseeability,
it is not the escape that must be foreseeable - only that damage is foreseeable, if the
'thing' or substance brought onto land does escape
Hale v Jennings Bros (1938) - the owner of the chair-o-plane ride was liable as the risk
of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose
Stannard v Gore (2012) - it was the fire that had escaped, not the tyres which were
stored on the land, and tyres were not exceptionally dangerous
3) A non-natural use of land
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2004) - Council were not liable
as their use of land was not a non-natural. Lord Bingham: "A use may be extraordinary
and unusual at one time or in one place but not so at another time or in another place"
Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) - the storage of chemicals
in a factory was a classic example of a non-natural use of land. Just because the
activity was an important source of local employment did not make the storage a natural
use of land
4) The thing must escape and cause foreseeable damage
The stored item must escape from one property onto another property
Read v J. Lyons & Co. Ltd (1947) - shell exploded
Escape = an escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over
land to a place which is outside his occupation or control. Rylands v Fletcher did not
apply
Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Countries Leather (1994) - the damage was not
foreseeable and too remote from the site of the spillage (chemicals and water
extraction)
What is classified as being a natural use of land? - Answer- • A fire in a grate which
spread to the claimant's premises
• Defective electric wiring that caused a fire which spread to the claimant's premises
• A domestic water supply
6 defences in Rylands v Fletcher? - Answer- • Act of God
Extreme weather conditions that no human foresight can provide against, unforeseeable
weather conditions
Nichols v Marsland (1876) - freak thunderstorms and torrential rain broke the banks of
the artificial lakes, and this water destroyed bridges on the claimant's land
• Act of a stranger
Stranger over whom the defendant has no control has been the cause of the escape
causing the damage
QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT
DETAILED ANSWERS
What forms of interference will not be protected? Cases. - Answer- • A view (Fearn and
other v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery)
• Light
• Television reception (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
Protection of offensive behaviour? Case. - Answer- • Courts are prepared to protect
offensive behaviour, affecting the character of the neighbourhood
• Thompson-Schwab v Costaki (1956): running a brothel in a respectable residential
area of London amounted to nuisance
What 5 factors will be considered in deciding the unreasonableness of the interference?
- Answer- • The duration of interference - continuous, at unreasonable hours; exception:
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks - 20-minute firework amounted to
private nuisance
• The sensitivity of the claimant - if the claimant is particularly sensitive, the activity may
not be a private nuisance
Robinson v Kilvert (1889): the brown paper was particularly delicate and the heat from
the basement would not have dried out normal paper
However, the court is moving to a general test of foreseeability Network Rail
Infrastructure v Morris (2004): the use of amplified guitars was abnormally sensitive
equipment, and the nuisance was not foreseeable
• Locality - purely residential/partly residential and partly commercial or industrial/town
or country/has changed in character over time
• Malice - a deliberately harmful act = unreasonable behaviour, nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936) - shooting to frighten the animals, so they
would not breed, unreasonable act and private nuisance
• Whether the social benefit outweighs the private benefit
Miller v Jackson (1977): recreational purposes > claimant's use and enjoyment of the
land
Who can be sued in private nuisance claim? - Answer- • The person who causes the
nuisance, or their successors in title Bybrook Barn Garden Centre v Kent County
Council (2001) - the culvert, which had overflowed, causing damage to the claimant's
land originally been constructed by the Council's predecessor
• The person who is causing or allowing the nuisance Tetley v Chitty (1986) a local
authority allowed go-kart racing on its land
• Occupier that adopts the nuisance Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan (1940)
,• The nuisance is the result of natural causes which the D is aware of but fails to deal
with Leakey v National Trust (1980) Ds failed to prevent the slippage which they were
aware of
Defences for private nuisance claim? - Answer- • 20 years without complaints =
prescriptive right to continue
Sturges v Bridgeman (1879)
• Statutory authority (Allen v Gulf Oil Refinery 1981) - authorised refinery
Is moving to the nuisance a defence? Cases. - Answer- 1) Not a defence
2) • Sturges v Bridgeman (1879)
• Coventry v Lawrence (2014) - if the C uses their property for the same purposes as
their predecessor, moving to the nuisance is also not a defence
Can local authority permission be a defence? - Answer- • Yes, unless it changes the
character of the neighbourhood
• Wheeler v Saunders (1996): the effect of granting a planning permission to expand the
pig farm was not to change the character of the neighbourhood
In which cases damages would be more appropriate remedy? - Answer- • Planning
permission
• The public interest, e.g. employees losing their jobs
What are the remedies for private nuisance? - Answer- • Injunction - Kennaway v
Thompson (1981) limit the use of the lake, close to the claimant's house
Can also be positive in nature, e.g. install a filter
• Abatement - Lemmon v Webb (1894) - claimant could chop down the overhanging
branches from his own land
• Damages - Coventry v Lawrence (2014)
What is the strict liability tort? - Answer- The claimant does not have to prove that the
defendant was at fault
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) summary of the case? - Answer- Mill owner hired contractors
to create a reservoir to act as a water supply for the mill. The contractors negligently
failed to block off the disused mineshafts that were uncovered during excavations.
Those shafts were connected to other mineworks on adjoining land, belonging to the
claimant. When the reservoir was filled, water flooded the neighbouring mines. The
defendant, Rylands, was liable.
Who can bring a claim in Rylands v Fletcher? Cases? - Answer- Transco plc v
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) - proprietary interest in land by claimant
Who will a defendant be in Rylands v Fletcher claim? - Answer- Owner or occupier of
the land who satisfies four ingredients of tort (Viscount Simon's test in Read v Lyons). It
, is assumed that the defendant must have some control over the land on which the
material is stored
Four elements of Rylands v Fletcher? Cases. - Answer- 1) A 'thing' is brought onto land
and is being accumulated/stored: if naturally present = no liability (Giles v Walker 1890 -
weeds spread onto neighbouring land; Ellison v Ministry of Defence 1997 - rainwater
that accumulated naturally)
2) The 'thing' is likely to cause mischief or damage if it escapes: Test for foreseeability,
it is not the escape that must be foreseeable - only that damage is foreseeable, if the
'thing' or substance brought onto land does escape
Hale v Jennings Bros (1938) - the owner of the chair-o-plane ride was liable as the risk
of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose
Stannard v Gore (2012) - it was the fire that had escaped, not the tyres which were
stored on the land, and tyres were not exceptionally dangerous
3) A non-natural use of land
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2004) - Council were not liable
as their use of land was not a non-natural. Lord Bingham: "A use may be extraordinary
and unusual at one time or in one place but not so at another time or in another place"
Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) - the storage of chemicals
in a factory was a classic example of a non-natural use of land. Just because the
activity was an important source of local employment did not make the storage a natural
use of land
4) The thing must escape and cause foreseeable damage
The stored item must escape from one property onto another property
Read v J. Lyons & Co. Ltd (1947) - shell exploded
Escape = an escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over
land to a place which is outside his occupation or control. Rylands v Fletcher did not
apply
Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Countries Leather (1994) - the damage was not
foreseeable and too remote from the site of the spillage (chemicals and water
extraction)
What is classified as being a natural use of land? - Answer- • A fire in a grate which
spread to the claimant's premises
• Defective electric wiring that caused a fire which spread to the claimant's premises
• A domestic water supply
6 defences in Rylands v Fletcher? - Answer- • Act of God
Extreme weather conditions that no human foresight can provide against, unforeseeable
weather conditions
Nichols v Marsland (1876) - freak thunderstorms and torrential rain broke the banks of
the artificial lakes, and this water destroyed bridges on the claimant's land
• Act of a stranger
Stranger over whom the defendant has no control has been the cause of the escape
causing the damage
