Abstract
The interrelationship between the law of nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330 and negligence in cases of physical damage has caused much confusion. One of the reasons for this is that it is still unclear what nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher are actually about. Is nuisance a strict liability tort? What is the real purpose of imposing strict liability under Rylands? The recent case of Nottingham Forest Trustee Ltd v Unison Networks Ltd provided a perfect opportunity to provide some guidance on these questions. The case involved damage caused by recurrent tree falls from the defendant’s land, and the parties disagreed about whether the plaintiff needed to show negligence to hold the defendant liable. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal shied away from the opportunity to prevent or simplify future litigation of this kind, leaving nuisance and Rylands in ongoing need of direction.