Injunctions normally for continuous private nuisance

This preview shows page 17 - 19 out of 24 pages.

Injunctions – normally for continuous private nuisance – balancing the interest of cl and interests of def o NB. Issue of damages in lieu of injunctions where def’s activity has public benefit Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co (1895) Miller v Jackson (1977) Kennaway v Thompson (1981) Dennis v MOD (2003) Barr v Biffa (2012) Coventry v Lawrence (2014) Abatement – self-help to bring things to an end – not advisable remedy The rule in Ryland v Fletcher (1866) – similar to nuisance Person who for his own purpose brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, [where this is a non-natural use of the land] must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the pl’s default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient o Essential requirement for a successful claim Something must be brought onto the land and escapes and cause damage in R v F, whereas, private nuisance is anything that could cause harm from emanation… Rise in industry – especially mills – in order to operate, need to be reservoir of water o Def had accumulated water on their land – i.e. they have reservoir of water on their land so he could operate the mills Didn’t realise that underneath the water there was an abandoned coal mine o Floor of reservoir burst and water went into the coal mine – that mine wasn’t just on his own land, it was on his neighbour’s land as well – resulted in floor in neighbour’s land
o Claim was successful – entitled to compensation and damages - the water was inherently dangerous, it escaped and cause damage Definition of dangerous is that something that escaped and caused damage Overview of the requirements for Rylands v Fletcher action 1) There must be a dangerous thing which would be likely to cause damage or mischief if it escaped – i.e. harm 2) This must be accumulated by def 3) There must be an escape 4) This accumulation must be a non-natural user of the land a. Slight difference from unreasonable use of land Also consider 5) Who can sue under Rylands v Fletcher 6) Defences 7) Remedies Relationship between private nuisance, negligence and R v F Private Nuisance: o Was the interference unreasonable? (i.e. effect on the cl is key issue) R v F is all about the burden of risk – should it be on the neighbours of the def? Negligence: o Did the def’s conduct fall below the required standard of care? (i.e. the def’s fault is the key) Rylands v Fletcher – strict liability, even if there’s much care, if def took a dangerous thing onto the land and if it escaped and cause damage and in a non-natural use – they are still liable o How likely was a dangerous thing stored in a non-natural use of land going to cause damage if it escaped? (i.e. level of risk is the key)

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture