Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:57:47 +1200

From: Barry Allan

Subject: The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

Stephen Offei wrote:

I shall be particularly keen to know where the Canadian and New Zealand Courts stand on Rylands v Fletcher at the moment.

The relevant law here in New Zealand would be the (with respect) witterings of the Court of Appeal in Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265 where it recognised that Rylands v Fletcher liability continued to exist, with the following three qualifications:

1. It is an aspect of nuisance;

2. Foreseeability of damage is a requirement;

3. Lack of reasonable care in the management of the risk is also a requirement (despite quoting Cambridge Water to opposite effect!).

So - if that is Rylands v Fletcher, then yes we still have it. Of course, the case was pretty much a non starter anyway, so they would have been better off remaining silent. That was the stance taken by the Privy Council on appeal.

Barry
--

*****************************************
Barry Allan
Lecturer
Faculty of Law
University of Otago
PO Box 56
Dunedin
New Zealand
phone: ++(64) (03) 479 8830. fax:(03) 479 8855

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>