Lord Hoffmann's Mouse

Abstract

What on earth is this thing we call "the rule in Rylands v Fletcher", a cause of action so odd that after 135 years we have still been unable to find a proper name for it? The recent decision of the House of Lords in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council promised to answer this question. Their Lordships asserted that the rule continues to play a meaningful role in English law and elucidated the principles on which the cause of action is based. Unfortunately, however, as I argue in this note, it is impossible to accept both the elucidations provided by their Lordships and the notion that Rylands v Fletcher continues to play a meaningful role. In fact, while their Lordships insisted that Rylands v Fletcher was here to stay, Transco actually signals the rule’s final demise. It is past time for this to be recognised openly, both by the House of Lords and by New Zealand courts.

Keywords: torts, Rylands v Fletcher, Transco