No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Non-Natural Use of Land
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
The purpose of this paper is to re-examine the meaning of “non-natural use” of land as a criterion in determining liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, in the light of modern developments, particularly in the field of public law.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1973
References
1 (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330, affirming (1866) L.R. 1 Ex. 265.
2 For speculation on the identity of the father, see Stallybrass, 3 C.L.J. 376, and for the father's presumed surprise that, like most children, this one didn't grow up as it should have done, see Newark, Non-natural User and Rylands v. Fletcher, 24 M.L.R. 557 (dealing with the evolution of the rule until Rickards v. Lothian).
3 (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330, 339.
4 [1913] A.C. 263 (Privy Council).
5 [1913] A.C. at p. 280.
6 [1947] A.C. 156 (H.L.).
7 [1947] A.C. at p. 166.
8 [1947] A.C. at p. 176.
9 [1947] 1 All E.R. 344.
10 [1947] 1 All E.R. at p. 345.
11 [1956] 1 W.L.R. 779 (Havers J.).
12 [1956] 1 W.L.R. at p. 780.
13 [1947] A.C. 156.
14 [1969] 1 W.L.R. 959.
15 [1969] 1 W.L.R. at p. 963.
16 Howard v. Furness, etc. Ltd. [1936] 2 All E.R. 781.Google Scholar
17 Western Engraving Co. v. Film Laboratories Ltd. [1936] 1 All E.R. 106.Google Scholar
18 [1939] 3 All E.R. 253.
19 Currently the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 as amended. The definition section (s. 290) provides only that “‘use,’ in relation to land, does not include the use of the land for the carrying out of any building and other operations thereon.”
20 [1966] 1 W.L.R. 506.
21 [1966] 1 W.L.R. at p. 512; and see the similar comments of Diplock L.J. at p. 514. See generally Heap, Encyclopedia of Planning, Vol. 3, 6–059 et seq.
22 Bolton v. Stone [1949] 1 All E.R. at p. 238, per Oliver, J.Google Scholar
23 [1938] Ch. 1.
24 [1938] Ch. at p. 6. But see Heintzman v. Hashman (1973) 32 D.L.R. (3d) 622 at p. 627Google Scholar where the judge distinguishes the use of land during construction from the use of the building constructed, categorising the former as a special use.
25 Lindsay v. The Queen (1956) 5 D.L.R. (2d) 349.Google Scholar
26 J. P. Porter Co. Ltd. v. Bell [1955] 1 D.L.R. 62.Google Scholar
27 Balfour v. Barty-King [1956] 1 W.L.R. 779.Google Scholar
28 C. Burley Ltd. v. Stepney Corporation [1947] 1 All E.R. 507.Google Scholar
29 Boxes Ltd. v. British Waterways Board [1970] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 434.Google Scholar
30 Mihalchuk v. Ratke (1966) 57 D.L.R. (2d) 269.Google Scholar
31 Shiffman v. Order of St. John [1936] 1 All E.R. 557.Google Scholar
32 A. Prosser & Son Ltd. v. Levy [1955] 1 W.L.R. 1224.Google Scholar
33 J. Doltis Ltd. v. Isaac Braithwaite & Sons (Engineers) Ltd. [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 522.Google Scholar
34 [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 522.
35 [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep. at p. 528.
36 3 C.L.J. at p. 397, quoting from the judgment of Judge Barnard, Lailey K.C. in P.M.G. v. Latter (1928).Google Scholar
37 [1945] K.B. 216 (C.A.). See also Windeyer, J. in Benning v. Wong (1969) 122 C.L.R. 249 at pp. 301–302.Google Scholar
38 [1947] A.C. 156.
39 [1945] K.B. at p. 240.
40 Lindsay v. The Queen (1956) 5 D.L.R. (2d) 349 at p. 358.Google Scholar
41 [1921] 1 A.C. 521, 536.
42 [1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 183 (C.A.), affirming [1970] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 434.
43 [1964] 2 Q.B. 806.
44 [1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep. at p. 184.
45 Mason v. Levy Auto Parts of England [1967] 2 Q.B. 530.Google Scholar
46 [1967] 2 Q.B. at p. 543.
47 [1947] 1 All E.R. 344.
48 [1955] 1 W.L.R. 1224.
49 As in Boxes Ltd. v. British Waterways Board [1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 183.Google Scholar
50 As in Prosser v. Levy [1955] 1 W.L.R. 1224.Google Scholar
51 As in Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. [1970] A.C. 1004Google Scholar where no argument was attempted along the lines of Att.-Gen. v. Cooke [1933] Ch. 89 (liability for escaping gypsies).Google Scholar
52 (1966) 57 D.L.R. (2d) 269.
53 See note 15.
54 [1943] K.B. 73.
55 [1936] 1 All E.R. 106.
56 [1936] 1 All E.R. at p. 109.
57 See comments in first section of this article.
58 The first major Act of the present type of control was in 1947. See now the 1971 Act.
59 [1969] 1 W.L.R. at p. 963.
60 See, e.g., Kruse v. Johnson [1898] 2 Q.B. 91; Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223.Google Scholar
61 Building Regulations, 1965 S.I. 1373, made under Public Health Act 1961, and e.g., Clean Air Act 1956: Alkali etc., Works Regulation Act 1906; Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972; Fire Precautions Act 1971; Factories Act 1961; Offices Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963.
62 e.g., that they be connected to mains sewerage, under s. 42, Public Health Act 1936.
63 [1964] 2 Q.B. at p. 832 (the judgment of the court).
64 Smeaton v. Ilford Corporation [1954] Ch. 450.Google Scholar
65 Pride of Derby & Derby Angling Association Lid. v. British Celanese Ltd. [1953] Ch. 149 (C.A.).Google Scholar
66 [1953] Ch. at p. 189.
67 See, e.g., Gas Act 1965, establishing absolute liability for underground storage, but refusal to extend absolute liability to general proceedings against the Gas Corporation in the Gas Bill 1972, H.C.Deb., 5s., Vol. 839, cols. 892 et seq.
68 [1953] Ch. 450.
69 Although see here Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972, which contains its own provision for civil liability in s. 2.
70 , Heap, Encyclopedia of Planning, Vol. 3, 6–058.Google Scholar