THE SCOPE OF THE RULE IN RYLANDS v FLETCHER

Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, [2003] 3 WLR 1467

The House of Lords in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, [2003] 3 WLR 1467 has dismissed an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (on which see our June 2001 issue, pp.7–8) and held that the defendant local authority was not liable to the claimants under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Exch 265; (1868) LR 3 HL 330. The significance of the rule in Rylands is that it imposes strict liability on the defendant rather than the usual fault-based liability. The House of Lords affirmed that Rylands remains good law and sought to restate the rule in order to achieve as much certainty and clarity as possible. It may be doubted whether the five speeches given by their Lordships (which run to 116 paragraphs) fulfil this aim. But they do at least identify the key ingredients of Rylands liability which are as follows: (i) it is a sub-species of nuisance (not negligence), (ii) there must be an escape from the defendant’s land, (iii) the defendant must have done something which he recognised, or ought to have recognised, as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there should be an escape, (iv) it is a tort directed to the protection of interests in land and so damages for personal injuries are not recoverable, (v) liability is, in principle, strict, and (vi) there are a number of defences to the claim such as Act of God, act of a stranger, statutory authority, etc. The existence of these defences limits significantly the claim that Rylands is a tort of strict liability. But the defences, while significant, do not reduce the rule to one based on fault because the claimant does not have the burden of proving fault. On the contrary, it is for the defendant to prove the existence of a defence to the strict liability which will otherwise arise.