Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:18:32.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-Natural Use of Land

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

David W. Williams
Get access

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
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , November 1973 , pp. 310 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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