Claimants began an action in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher against the respondents. They sought to strike out the claim on the basis that some of the claimants did not have a sufficient interest in the land affected. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher was an extension of the law of nuisance.
Held: On an interlocutory basis it was probable that the law of nuisance did apply, requiring the claimant’s to have an interest in land, but in the light of the extension of Human Rights law to common law, the claim could not be described as having no prospect of success, and the strike out request failed.
Mr Justice Neuberger
England and Wales
- Cited – British Celanese Ltd v A H Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd QBD 1969
Metal foil had been blown from the defendant’s factory premises on to an electricity sub-station, which in turn brought the plaintiff’s machines to a halt.
Held: The meaning Lawton J would give to the phrase ‘direct victim’ was a person whose . .
 2 All ER 1252,  1 WLR 959
- Cited – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
(1868) LR 3 HL 330,  UKHL 1
- Cited – Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
Times 10-Dec-93, Gazette 16-Mar-94, Independent 10-Dec-93, (1994) 1 All ER 53,  2 WLR 53,  2 AC 264,  UKHL 12
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 December 2020; Ref: scu.170174