Could a Privy Council decision loosen the bonds which have tied down the tort of private nuisance for so long? Richard Buckley reports
- Considers the Privy Council decision in Rubis Bahamas Ltd v Russell and the fresh approach to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher which it embodies.
Every lawyer will be familiar (if only as a distant memory from student days) with the phrase ‘The rule in Rylands v Fletcher…’. Those whose work involves acquaintance with the law of tort will also be aware that the ‘rule’, which deals with liability for ‘escapes’ from land and dates from a classic judgment of Mr Justice Blackburn (see (1866) LR 1 Exch 265; affirmed (1868) LR 3 HL 330), has, in recent times, played only a very limited role in the common law and rarely troubled the reporters. This is because judgments over many decades have tended progressively to emasculate the ‘strict liability’ which it appeared to promise in its early years. Thus the prevailing
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=6e6975ed_1)
