welcome to this podcast on some key aspects of the English law of Tor we will discuss liability arising from the use of premises and occupiers liability we will also look at nuisance and the rule in rylands and Fletcher before delving into the crucial contemporary topic of privacy we will address elements of the law as they relate to undergraduate law students and those taking the solicitors qualifying examination the sqe this podcast was prepared by Dr Yannis glenos and is narrated by an AI voice if if you would like to know more about how this podcast was produced get in touch with Dr Giannis let's get started by trying to get a clear understanding of the legal distinctions between claims based on damage to property and those arising from defects in property we do this to enable you to evaluate the so-called complex structure approach and analyze the leading authorities in this area including dnf Estates versus Church Commissioners 1989 ANS versus Merton 1978 and Murphy versus Brentwood 1990 Additionally you should understand the current position on preventative expenditure aimed at avoiding damage to persons or property introduction physical damage to property represents a form of harm for which Tor law typically provides compensation many cases in this domain arise when claimants either incur expenditure or fail to realize a profit due to a defect in a product land or building they have acquired today's discussion will examine claims regarding damage to proper property highlighting the critical distinction between claims based on such damage and claims based on a defect in the property itself the latter being a concern of contract law rather than tort law economic loss acquiring defective property physical damage to property is as a general rule compensable and Tor provided other recovery rules are satisfied an example of this is found in the law of nuisance which compensates for so-called amenity damage instances where enjoyment of property is diminished such as from unpleasant smells emanating from a neighboring Factory when claims arise from physical damage they fall under the Tor of negligence provided the damage stems from more than just a defect in the property claims concerning defective property are addressed through contract law as Tor law does not recognize a duty of care for defects unless the defect causes damage to other property or a person a key line of cases in this area involves property such as homes or flats that display signs of physical deterioration requiring claimants to either repair or sell at a reduced value landmark cases in this area include dnf Estates versus Church Commissioners 1989 and Murphy versus Brentwood 1990 both of which clarified the boundaries of liability defects and damage in cases of defective products tort law does not typically recognize economic loss which is primarily recoverable through contract however the seminal case of ANS versus mtan LBC 1978 challenged this principle in ANS a block of flats developed cracks due to shallow foundations despite the local council's prior approval of the building plans Lord Wilbur Force ruled that the repair costs to restore the dwelling to a safe condition were compensable as material physical damage this marked a significant expansion of the duty of care and negligence subsequent cases however rolled back the prent set in hands in dnf Estates versus Church Commissioners the House of Lords ruled that a defective product in this case negligently applied plaster did not give rise to liability and negligence unless it caused damage to other property or injury this judgment clarified that the discovery of a defect absent resulting damage constitutes pure economic loss which is outside the scope of Tor this position was reinforced in Murphy versus Brentwood DC 1990 where the House of Lords ruled that a local Authority was not liable for approving defective building plans it led to subsidence and a houses foundations the damage was confined to the property itself making it a case of pure economic loss Lord Bridge emphasized that allowing recovery for defects alone would blur the boundaries between Tor and contract law relegating such claims to the latter domain the complex structure the complex Structure Theory emerged as a potential Avenue for claiming this Theory posits that a building may be viewed as a series of interconnected components allowing damage to one part of the structure to be treated as harm to other property for example a faulty boiler exploding and damaging the rest of a house could be recoverable however in Murphy the House of Lords dismissed this Theory as artificial and impractical particularly when applied to integrated structures Like Houses Lord Johnny argued that a house built as a single unit cannot realistic Ally be divided into separate components for the purpose of liability the current position the law now firmly classifies preventative expenditure to avoid damage to persons or property is economic loss which is not recoverable in Tor a clear distinction exists between defective property causing harm to people or other property where damages are recoverable and property that is merely defective and worth less than it should be where damages are not the defective premises act 1972 supplements this framework by imposing a statutory Duty on Builders and related professionals to ensure their work is conducted professionally with proper materials and results in a dwelling fit for habitation upon completion this statute underscores the boundary between Tor and contract law by delineating specific duties owed by professionals to ensure Fitness for purpose conclusion in understanding economic loss and defective property claims it is essential to recognize the Nuance distinctions articulated in the leading cases while ANS initially expanded the scope of liability subsequent rulings in dnf Estates and Murphy have reasserted the Primacy of contract law and addressing pure economic loss this framework reinforces the principle that Tor law primarily protects against harm to persons and other property leaving disputes over defective property to contractual remedies we now move on to explain which entrance into private premises are lawful visitors and which are not define who is to be treated as an occupier of premises this is aimed to provide you with knowledge of the duty of care owed by occupiers to lawful visitors under the occupiers liability act 1957 and describe and explain the nature and extent of the occupi duty to trespassers under the occupi liability act 1984 introduction the duty owed by occupiers of premises to those in are on the premises has long been recognized in common law however the common law Duty has been replaced by statutory negligence type duties under the occupiers liability acts 1957 in 1984 these acts establish the framework for liability based on the status of the entrant and the circumstances of the case Background by 1957 the common law on occupi liability was seen as unsatisfactory due to its rigidity and complexity with different duties owed to different classes of entrance the occupi liability act 1957 sought to address this by codifying the duties owed to lawful visitors meanwhile a limited Duty was owed to trust ERS which was later formalized under the occupiers liability act 1984 the acts replace the common law rules where they apply meaning no alternative common law action and negligence can be brought for claims falling within their scope the acts deal only with liability for harm occurring on the premises not harm caused to those outside the premises occupiers liability act 1957 this act applies primarily to lawful visitors and defines the occupi duty as the common duty of care the scope of the act includes injuries arising from the state of the premises but activities on the premises are usually governed by common law negligence for instance in Slater versus clay crossco 1956 Lord Denning emphasized the general duty of care owed by land owners for activities occurring on their land the acts coverage extends to fixed and movable structures as seen in wheeler versus copas 1981 where a latter was held to be within the definition of premises the question of who qualifies as an occupier depends on control rather than ownership as Illustrated in wheat versus elacin and Company Limited 1966 where both the owners and the manager of a pub were deemed occupiers due to Shared control of the premises lawful visitors include those with explicit or implied permission to enter such as invitees lenses and individuals exercising statutory rights the nature of permission can be limited by time or area and breaches of these limits may change a lawful visitor's status to that of a trespasser for example Scruton LJ's statement in the calgarth 1927 clarified that entry must align with the purpose for which permission was granted the duty owed under the ACT requires the occupier to take reasonable care to ensure the visitor's safety this flexible Duty depends on the circumstances as demonstrated in Cole versus Davis Gilbert 2007 where the court emphasized the need for reasonable standards without imposing overly burdensome duties similarly in White Lion Hotel versus James 2021 the court of appeal confirmed liability for failing to address a known Hazard though contributory negligence reduced the claim it's damages children are owed a higher Duty under the act as they may be less aware of risks in Glasgow Corporation versus Taylor 1922 the defendants were held liable for failing to fence off poison berries that attracted children however responsibility may also fall on parents as seen in fips versus Rochester Corporation 1955 where the court placed primary responsibility on parents for supervising young children trade visitors are expected to appreciate and guard against risks inherent to their profession in rolls versus Nathan 1963 chimy sweeps who disregarded warnings about carbon monoxide risks were deemed responsible for their injuries absolving the occupier of liability warnings in independent contractors also play a role in discharging the occupier duty a warning must adequately inform visitors of the danger as seen in English Heritage versus Taylor 2016 for independent contractors the occupier must select competent professionals and take reasonable steps to ensure the work is properly done as established in hassled vah 1941 and bottomly versus Todd Morton Cricket Club 20 03 occupiers liability act 1984 the 1984 act applies to unlawful visitors including trespassers and imposes a duty to act with common Humanity this Duty arises only if three conditions are met the occupier is aware of the danger knows or should know that the trespasser May encounter it and the risk is one against which protection is reasonably expected the duty is to take reasonable care to prevent injury but it is less stringent than the duty owed to lawful visitors in Ratcliffe versus McConnell 1999 the court upheld the principle of Valente nonfit injury finding no Duty owed to a trespasser who willingly accepted the risks of diving into a closed swimming pool similarly in Tomlinson versus congleton burough Council 2003 the House of Lords rejected a claim by a trespasser who suffered injuries after diving into a prohibited Lake citing policy reasons against imposing excessive burdens on on public bodies in summary the duties under the occupiers liability acts of 1957 and 1984 reflect a balance between ensuring safety and recognizing personal responsibility lawful visitors are afforded greater protection while trespassers receive a limited Duty based on the circumstances of their entry and the nature of the danger encountered we will now explain the difference between various forms of nuisance and when each form is applicable apply the rule relating to the tort of private nuisance and and in particular identify who can sue when a court is likely to find liability what defenses exist and what remedies are available you should also be able to outline the basic rules of the Tor of public nuisance understand the potential for overlap between nuisance and the torts of Ryland versus Fletcher and negligence and identify the influence of the Human Rights Act 1998 on this area of Tor law introduction there are two common law torts with the word nuisance in their name each distinct in application and purpose private nuisance addresses indirect interferences affecting the use and enjoyment of land such as noise smells and fumes public nuisance on the other hand is broader in scope serving as both a tort and a crime typically concerned with activities affecting the Public's reasonable comfort and convenience while the police crime sentencing in courts act 2022 replac the common law offense of public nuisance with a statutory offense it left the Tor of public nuisance intact for individual claimants experiencing special damage the different forms of nuisance private nuisance arises when there is an unlawful interference with an individual's use or enjoyment of land or a right connected to it public nuisance in contrast pertains to disturbances materially affecting the comfort and convenience of a class of individuals the Environmental Protection act 1990 part 3 governs statute nuisances which fall outside the scope of this discussion private nuisance private nuisance encompasses three main types of interference physical damage to land substantial interference with the enjoyment of land and encroachment by natural elements such as overhanging branches these interferences must significantly affect the climate's use and enjoyment of land as Illustrated in Davy versus herrow Corporation 1958 where tree roots caused structural damage to neighboring property who can sue only individuals with proprietary rights or exclusive possession can sue for private nuisance in Hunter versus Canary Warf limited 1997 the House of Lords confirmed that a proprietary interest is essential overturning earlier decisions that allowed non-property owners to bring claims however questions have been raised about the exclusion of family members under article 8 of the European convention on human rights what constitutes a nuisance Lord rights def definition in sedley denfield vooc Callahan 1940 emphasizes balancing the defendant's right to use their land and the claimant's right to quiet enjoyment reasonableness is the key Criterion influenced by factors such as locality duration frequency and Malice for instance in Sturgis versus Bridgeman 1879 biger LJ noted that what constitutes a nuisance depends on the character of the neighborhood factors determining reasonable use the courts weighs several considerations including physical damage the nature of the locality and the utility of the defendant's conduct for example in Miller versus Jackson 1977 the court of appeal balanced the social value of cricket against the plaintiff's right to quiet enjoyment ultimately awarding damages instead of an injunction abnormal sensitivity as demonstrated in Robinson versus kilbert 1889 and Malice as in christe versus Davy 1893 are also relevant factors who could be sued potential defendants include the creator of the Nuance their employer or the occupier of the land who adopts or continues the nuisance in sidley denfield the defendant was liable for a nuisance created by a trespassing local Authority because they adopted the defective drainage system defenses defenses specific to nuisance includes statutory Authority prescription and the unforeseeable Act of a stranger statutory Authority applies when the nuisance is an inevitable consequence of activities authorized by law as seen in Allen versus Gulf oil refining limited 1981 prescription offers a defense if the nuisance has continued for over 20 years ineffective defenses include arguments such as coming to the nuisance or social utility as reaffirmed in Coventry versus Lawrence 2014 remedies claimants May seek in in Junctions abatement or damages injunctions though discretionary are the primary remedy for ongoing nuisances the Supreme Court in Coventry versus Lawrence reviewed the criteria for awarding damages in Li of an injunction emphasizing flexibility and public interest damages in private nuisance typically compensate for the diminution in land value or loss of enjoyment as clarified in Hunter versus Canary Warf public nuisance allows for Recovery of Damages related to personal injury and consequential economic loss as in Tate and ly Industries limited V greater London Council 1983 public nuisance public nuisance involves interferences affecting a class of individuals claims require proof of special damage such as personal injury or economic loss exceeding that suffered by the public at large in taton Lyall the court awarded damages for the cost of dredging caused by excessive silting in the river Tams where special damage cannot be proved claims must be brought in the name of the Attorney General or under statutory Provisions the influence of the Human Rights Act 1998 article 8 of the European convention on human rights has introduced New Dimensions to nuisance law in Dennis versus Ministry of Defense 2003 noise from military aircraft breached article 8 rights but damages were awarded instead of an injunction due to public interest similarly in Mark vm's water utilities 2003 the courts limited the impact of article 8 in cases involving statutory duties conclusion the law of nuisance balances competing interests in the use and enjoyment of land private nuisance focuses on protecting property rights while public nuisance addresses broader societal hars remedies range from injunctions to damages with the courts carefully considering factors such as locality reasonableness and public interest understanding these principles is essential for navigating this new area of Tor law we now move on to explain the nature of the rule in rylands versus Fletcher and its relationship with other torts analyze when a claim under rolence versus Fletcher is likely to arise identify who can sue and be sued under the rule explain the available defenses and understand the remedies introduction the rule in rylands versus Fletcher 1865 lr1 x265 is a strict liability Doctrine protecting land owners from damage caused by isolated escapes of dangerous substances or items unlike private nuisance Ryland versus Fletcher does not require a continuous activity it also differs from negligence as it does not demand proof of a duty of care or its breach despite its historical importance the tor's practical application has diminished due to the growth of nuisance negligence and statutory liability key principles of Ryland versus Fletcher the foundational case involved the flooding of a coal mine due to the negligent construction of a reservoir the principle as articulated by Blackbird J States the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do Mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his Peril and if he does not do so is primi answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape to establish liability under Ryland versus Fletcher four elements must be proven one non-natural use of land the use must be extraordinary and unusual not ordinary or for General Community benefit as highlighted in Rickards versus loan 1913 two bringing and keeping a dangerous thing the defendant must bring onto their land something likely to cause harm if it escapes three escape the dangerous item or substance must leave the defendant's land as emphasized in Reed versus Jay lions and Company Limited 1947 four foreseeable damage the damage caused must be a foreseeable result of the Escape clarified in Cambridge water County V Eastern County's leather 1994 land use and foreseeability non-natural use this requirement has been pivotal in limiting the scope of Ryland versus Fletcher the House of Lords in Transco versus Stockport MBC 2003 underscored that strict liability is confined to extraordinary or unusual uses of land routine activities such as supplying water to Residential Properties do not satisfy this Criterion foreseeable loss the decision in Cambridge water reaffirmed that liability under Ryland versus Fletcher requires foreseeability of the type of damage caused by the Escape aligning it with principles of nuisance who can sue only individuals with proprietary rights in land May Sue under rylands versus Fletcher as confirmed in Transco this aligns the tort with private nuisance earlier cases permitting claims without propri Ary rights such as shiffman versus order of the hospital of St John of Jerusalem 1936 have been largely disregarded defenses several defenses exist to claims under rylands versus Fletcher one act of a stranger if the Escape is caused by a third party's unforeseeable actions the defendant is not liable as in Rickards versus Lothian 1913 two Act of God natural events that could not have been anticipated or guarded against such as unprecedented weather May absolve liability however this defense is rarely accepted as seen in greenic corp versus Caledonian Railway 1917 three statutory Authority activities authorized by Statute May provide a defense if the nuisance is an inevitable consequence four consent if the claimant has consented to the risk of Escape liability may be negated for example tenants benefiting from a shared water supply May implicitly consent to risks associated with it damages and remedies limitations damages under rence versus Fletcher are restricted to proprietary losses claims for personal injury are excluded as clarified in Hunter versus Canary Warf 1997 and affirmed in Transco remedies the primary remedy is compensation for the damage caused by the Escape injunctive relief is not typically associated with Ryland versus Fletcher given its focus on isolated incidents case law highlights Cambridge water County V Eastern County's leather this Case established that foreseeability of harm is a prerequisite for liability it also emphasized that industrial use of chemicals constitutes non-natural use of land Transco versus Stockport MBC the House of Lords confined Ryland versus Fletcher to exceptional circumstances involving extraordinary use of land and exceptionally high risks to neighboring properties the case reinforced the tor's alignment with with private nuisance principles conclusion the rule in rylands versus Fletcher serves as a specialized subset of private nuisance addressing liability for isolated escapes of dangerous items its restrictive application reflects judicial caution and extending strict liability and its interplay with other torts such as nuisance and negligence understanding its requirements defenses and limitations is crucial for evaluating claims under this Doctrine The Guiding principles from Cambridge water and Transco provide a clear framework for navigating this nuanced area of tort law understanding the tort of privacy in English law we finish today's podcast by diving into the fascinating evolution of Privacy Law in England by the end of this discussion you'll attain an understanding of some key elements including the history of privacy protection in English law the current legal approaches to privacy how courts now recognize the Tor of misuse of private information as a distinct cause of action and the impact of the Human Rights Act 19 98 on Privacy Law Privacy Law as we know it today is a relatively new area in the United Kingdom but its development has been Swift two pivotal events propelled this Evolution the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the increasingly invasive behavior of a tabic press Amplified by modern technological advancements unlike defamation which addresses false statements Privacy Law protects private information even when it is true it has found particular relevance in high-profile cases involving politicians celebrities and members of the royal family the foundation of modern Privacy Law rests on the European convention on human rights ECR and the Human Rights Act 1998 article 8 of the ECR guarantees the right to respect for private and family life while article n protects the right to freedom of expression these two rights often conflict requiring courts to carefully balance the interests of privacy with the public right to know one of the earliest cases to Spotlight privacy concerns was K versus Robertson in 1991 this case revealed a glaring Gap in English law at the time Gordon Kay a British television actor who's recovering in a hospital after a severe accident when journalists entered his room Uninvited to interview him the court granted an interm injunction to prevent publication but the Judgment underscored the absence of a statutory right to privacy prompting calls for legislative reform the olution of a privacy Tor has primarily revolved around two legal doctrines first the breach of confidence originally tied to confidential relationships has expanded to cover private information cases such as Prince Albert versus strange and hrh Prince of Wales versus associated newspapers illustrate this development second the Tor of misuse of private information emerged as a distinct cause of action in The Landmark case of Campbell versus mirror group newspapers in 2004 Naomi Campbell's Case established a standard for balancing privacy and freedom of expression introducing the concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy modern case law continues to refine these principles in Mosley versus newsg group newspapers in 2008 Max Mosley then chairman of Formula 1 was awarded substantial damages after tabloid published intimate details about his private life the court recognized his reasonable expectation of privacy emphasizing that the publication lacked any legitimate public interest similarly in Murray versus Express Newspapers the court of appeal upheld the Privacy rights of JK Rowling's young son emphasizing that children deserve heightened protection from media intrusion a more recent and significant case is Sir Cliff Richard versus bbc in 2018 here the BBC broadcast a live police raid on Sir Cliff's home which was unrelated to any charges the high court found that the coverage violated his privacy awarding considerable damages for the distress caused the case reaffirmed that individuals under investigation have a reasonable expectation of privacy when privacy is breached claimants typically seek two forms of Remedies damages and injunctions damages aimed to compensate for distress or reputational harm as seen in Mosley and Richard injunctions on the other hand are often sought to prevent further publication of private information given the urgency of many privacy cases interim injunctions are a powerful but controversial tool as they can restrict freedom of expression before full trial to summarize the trajectory of Privacy Law in the UK highlights its adaptability to the challenges posed by modern society the recognition of misuse of private information as a tort underscores the legal systems responsiveness to evolving societal needs as technology and media continue to advance the principles established in these cases will remain crucial in navigating the delicate balance between individual rights and public interest before we wrap up here are a few reflective questions for you to consider how do you perceive the balance between privacy and freedom of expression should public figures by virtue of their status forfeit some of their privacy rights finally are the current legal remedies sufficient to address privacy violations in today's digital age thank you for joining us on this journey through the evolving landscape of Tor law have a look around Dr giannis's YouTube channel for more key podcast C on sqe knowledge content