Rylands and Another v Fletcher

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date17 July 1868
Judgment citation (vLex)[1868] UKHL J0717-1
CourtHouse of Lords
Date17 July 1868

[1868] UKHL J0717-1

House of Lords

Rylands & Ano r
and
Fletcher (in Error):
1

Whereas by virtue of a Suggestion of Error entered upon the Judgment Roll in the Court of Exchequer, at the Instance of John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks (Defendants there), in a Cause wherein Thomas Fletcher was Plaintiff, and the said John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks were Defendants, the said Judgment Roll and Proceedings of the said Court of Exchequer were brought into this House on the 23d Day of May 1867, in order to reverse a Judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber on a special Case, reversing a Judgment of the said Court of Exchequer, for the said John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks, Defendants there (Plaintiffs in Error); and Counsel having been heard, as well on Monday the 6th as Tuesday the 7th Days of this instant July, to argue the Error so suggested as aforesaid; and due Consideration being had this Day of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

2

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, That the said Judgment given in the said Court of Exchequer Chamber, reversing the said Judgment given in the said Court of Exchequer, be, and the same is hereby Affirmed, and that the Record be remitted, to the End that such Proceeding may be had thereupon as if no such Suggestion of Error had been brought into this House: And it is further Ordered, That the said Plaintiffs in Error do pay or cause to be paid to the said Defendant in Error the Costs incurred in respect of the said Suggestion of Error, the Amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.

3

Tenor.

4

On which Day, before the same Court of Parliament aforesaid, at Westminster aforesaid, come the Parties aforesaid, by their Attornies aforesaid: Whereupon, all and singular the Premises having been seen, and by the said Court of Parliament now here fully understood, and as well the Judgment Roll and Proceedings aforesaid, and the Judgments thereupon given, as also the Suggestion of Error aforesaid by the said John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks being diligently examined and inspected, and mature Deliberation being thereupon had; It appears to the said Court of Parliament now here, that there is no Error in the Judgment aforesaid, in Form aforesaid given in the said Court of Exchequer Chamber, by the Justices of our said Lady The Queen, assigned to hold Pleas in the Court of our said Lady The Queen, before The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
269 cases
  • Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd v Marcia Haughton
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 20 December 2007
    ... ... Whitehouse v Jordon and Another [1981] 1 All E.R. 267 is judgment of the House of Lords. The accurate headnote inter alia ... Law I agree with Counsel for the Defendant that the rule is Ryland v Fletcher is not applicable in this case. The Claimant has, though her witnesses established that ... ...
  • Rands v McNeil
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 19 November 1954
    ...in allowing it to escape from the keeper's control with the result that it does damage". This is in full accord with the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher where "escape" is an essential condition of liability: See ( Read v. Lyons 1947 Appeal Cases, at page 167, per Viscount Simon. Applying t......
  • Batang Kali Estate Sdn Bhd v Romani Binti Abdul Aziz
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1995
  • Bolton v Stone
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 10 May 1951
    ...But I do not think that this case comes within any such special category. It was argued that this case comes within the principle in Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R. 3, H.L. 330, but I agree with your Lordships that there is no substance in this argument. In my judgment the test to be applied her......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Non-delegable duties: Dangerous activity.
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 1 October 2019
    ...of the decision may be taken to be the following passage at pp 556 – 557. Having explained why the former rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868), LR 3HL 330 should be “absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence”, their Honours continued at p 556: Under those principles, a person who takes......
  • Non-delegable duties: Dangerous activity.
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 1 October 2019
    ...of the decision may be taken to be the following passage at pp 556 – 557. Having explained why the former rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868), LR 3HL 330 should be “absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence”, their Honours continued at p 556: Under those principles, a person who takes......
17 books & journal articles
  • Remoteness Criteria in Equity
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 65-4, July 2002
    • 1 July 2002
    ...(No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 (PC); Cambridge Water Co vEastern Counties LeatherCo [1994] 2 AC 264.10 Rylands vFletcher (1866) LR 1 Ex 265; (1868) LR 3 HL 330; Cambridge Water Co vEasternCounties Leather Co [1994] 2 AC 264.11 Smith New Court Securities Ltd vCitibank NA [1997] AC 254; A. Dugdale (e......
  • Compensation for harm caused by nuclear installations: what’s the damage?
    • United Kingdom
    • Emerald Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law No. 10-1, April 2018
    • 9 April 2018
    ...the 41st General Conference of the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency, Article 1(6).15. Included here is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 which is now firmlyestablished as a sub-set of the law of nuisance, see Cambridge Water v Eastern CountiesLeather [1994] 2 AC 264 and Tran......
  • Rylands v. Fletcher Revitalised
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. II-1999, January 1999
    • 1 January 1999
    ...own purposes brings onto, collects, or keeps on his land something likely to do Junior Sophister Law student, Trinity College, Dublin. 'LR 3 HL 330 (1868); Affg LR I Ex 265 (1866). 2 Most recently in Superquinn v. Bray UDC Unreported, High Court, 18 February 1998, Laffoy J. See also Cambrid......
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...(Pte) Ltd and Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd [2019] SGDC 110 41. Zillion Global Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG, Singapore Branch [2019] SGHC 165 1 (1868) LR 3 HL 330. 2 [2019] 1 SLR 834. 3 [2000] PNLR 323. 4 [2017] QB 987. 5 [1957] 1 WLR 582. 6 [1998] AC 232; [1997] 3 WLR 1151. 7 Muller v King's College Hospita......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT