Ryland's V Fletcher Case Study
Case Example: Tate & Lyle v Greater London Council  2 AC 509
Tate & Lyle operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Thames. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken be larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get to through the shallow waters. As part of development Tate & Lyle wished to …show more content…
It is a form of strict liability, in that the defendant may be liable in the absence of any negligent conduct on their part. Imposing liability without proof of negligence is controversial and therefore a restrictive approach has been taken with regards to liability under Ryland’s v Fletcher. There have been attempts to do away with liability under Ryland’s v Fletcher but the House of Lords have retained it.
Ryland’s v Fletcher  the defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. The reservoir was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage.
The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non- natural use of land.
Defamation - Requirements to sue for defamation.
Any purposeful false correspondence, either composed or talked, that damages an individual's notoriety; diminishes the appreciation, respect, or trust in which an individual is held; or affects criticizing, unfriendly, or upsetting conclusions or sentiments against an individual. Slander is an announcement that harms an outsider's notoriety. The tort of criticism incorporates both slander (composed explanations) and defamation (talked