Summary Tort Law - Private Nuisance (inc. Rylands v Fletcher)

PRIVATE NUISANCE AND RYLANDS v FLETCHER


Private Nuisance

Pre-conditions for the tort to apply:

I. Capacity of claimant to sue
Authority: Hunter v Canary Wharf
C must have a proprietary or possessory interest in the land, which is a substantial link
between the land and C.

Those with standing to sue:

 Freehold owner of land- Arscott v Coal Authority
 A person with a proprietary interest in an easement over land- Transco plc v
Stockport MBC
 A tenant: Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (allowed)
 A landlord whose reversionary interest is interfered with: Hunter
 A licensee with exclusive possession- Tinseltime Ltd v Davies
 A person with exclusive possession to land, which is valid against all but the true
owner of the land- Foster v Warblington UDC
 A ‘tolerated trespasser’, who, whilst remaining in the premises, has actual and
exclusive possession- Pemberton v Southwark LBC

Those with no standing to sue:

 Lodgers- Hunter
 Children or relatives- permitted in Khorasandjian v Bush overrules in Hunter.
 A worker who suffers interference at the work-place- hypothetical example in
Hunter
 Spouses who not have name on prop title- Malone v Laskey approved in Hunter
 Contractual right to access/use the property, but nothing more-Tate and Lyle v GLC
 A ‘mere trespasser’ or a temp occupier- Alegrete Shipping Co Inc v Intl oil Pollution
Compensation Fund

Where the nuisance occurs before C is in the area, and continues after C moves in and no
double compensation placed on D- Delaware mansions v Westminster CC

II. Capacity of defendant to be sued (created, adoption/ continuation of the nuisance)
Authority Coventry v Lawrence- creates the nuisance
Narrow View: Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan- D must be in possession and control of the
land from which the nuisance proceeds and D is liable for a nuisance existing on his
property.
Wider View: Nuisance doesn’t have to exist on D’s property nor arise out of his land.
Includes trespassers and protesters (Olympic Delivery Authy v Persons Unknown). And D
may merely own or control a thing which causes the nuisance but not own the actual land.

Adoption and/or continuance of the nuisance:
Created by others, but D, as owner/occupier, has carried it on, despite having the time and
means to do so.
Good action where the continuer has deeper pockets than the person string the nuisance.