Factual and Procedural Background
Between 1983 and 1989, Company A acquired approximately 680 acres of heavily contaminated land in The City with the intention of reclamation and redevelopment. The 18 claimants, born between 1986 and 1999 with upper limb deformities, allege that their mothers were exposed during early pregnancy to toxic materials released during Company A's reclamation programme, causing these deformities. On 15 June 2006, the claimants served Group Particulars of Claim initially based on negligence. Company A admitted a duty of care but denied breach and causation.
Company A applied to strike out parts of the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or being an abuse of process. A procedural order required the claimants to clarify their allegations of breach and causation, leading to additional particulars served on 27 April 2007. These introduced claims for breach of statutory duty and public nuisance. Company A objected to the public nuisance claim, arguing personal injury damages were not recoverable for public nuisance, and sought to strike it out.
The strike-out application was dismissed by the Master on 25 June 2007, who considered the law in this area to be developing and found the claim had real prospects of success. Company A was granted permission to appeal, with the Court of Appeal assigned to hear the matter due to its importance.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether damages for personal injury are recoverable in an action for public nuisance.
- Whether the claimants should be permitted to amend their particulars of claim to include a public nuisance claim.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- Damages for personal injury have traditionally been assumed recoverable in public nuisance but have never been the subject of a reasoned decision.
- House of Lords decisions in Hunter v Canary Wharf Limited and Transco plc v Stockport MBC indicate that such damages should not be recoverable, as nuisance protects rights in land, not bodily security.
- Previous cases awarding personal injury damages in public nuisance were wrongly decided and should no longer be followed.
- The only lawful basis to disallow amendment is if the claim has no real prospects of success; no prejudice to the Defendant was claimed.
Claimants' Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the claimants' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Hunter v Canary Wharf Limited [1997] AC 655 |
Established that nuisance is a tort against land, and damages for personal injury are not recoverable in private nuisance. |
The court held that Hunter did not definitively exclude personal injury damages in public nuisance, as the case concerned private nuisance only. |
| Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61, [2004] 2 AC 1 |
Confirmed that Rylands v Fletcher is a form of private nuisance and does not allow recovery for personal injury damages. |
The court found Transco did not imply a reversal of the principle allowing personal injury damages in public nuisance. |
| Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 |
Defined a form of nuisance related to escape of dangerous substances from land. |
Referenced as a sub-species of private nuisance, not supporting personal injury damages in public nuisance. |
| R v Rimmington and R v Goldstein [2005] UKHL 63, [2006] 1 AC 459 |
Provided historical and definitional context of public nuisance as a crime and tort protecting public rights and health. |
Used to support the distinction between public nuisance and private nuisance and the rationale for allowing personal injury damages in public nuisance. |
| Shiffman v St John of Jerusalem [1936] 1 All ER 557 |
Example of personal injury damages awarded under nuisance principles in the early 20th century. |
Referenced to show historical precedent of personal injury damages in nuisance cases. |
| Hale v Jennings Bros [1938] 1 All ER 579 |
Another early case awarding personal injury damages under nuisance principles. |
Used to illustrate past acceptance of such damages. |
| Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd |
Cast doubt on the application of Rylands v Fletcher to personal injury claims. |
Considered in analysis but did not definitively exclude personal injury damages in public nuisance. |
| Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] AC 264 |
Confirmed Rylands v Fletcher as a special form of nuisance. |
Referenced to support the classification of nuisance types but did not address personal injury damages in public nuisance. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by distinguishing private nuisance from public nuisance, noting that damages for personal injury are firmly excluded in private nuisance because it protects rights in land. The court examined the seminal article by Professor Newark, which argued that personal injury damages should not be recoverable in any nuisance claim, including public nuisance, as nuisance concerns interference with land rights rather than bodily security.
The court reviewed the House of Lords decisions in Hunter and Transco, concluding that neither explicitly addressed or reversed the long-standing principle that personal injury damages are recoverable in public nuisance. The observations in those cases were obiter dicta relating to private nuisance and did not definitively exclude personal injury claims in public nuisance.
In considering the nature of public nuisance, the court relied on authoritative historical and legal analyses, including Lord Bingham's summary in R v Rimmington and R v Goldstein. It emphasized that public nuisance protects the public's right not to be endangered in life, health, or safety by unlawful acts or omissions, rather than protecting property interests. Therefore, personal injury caused by public nuisance logically falls within the scope of recoverable damages.
While acknowledging the strength of the argument that personal injury damages should be confined to negligence, the court held that it was not its role to change this established principle. Instead, such a change should come from the highest court. The court found no reason to refuse the claimants permission to amend their particulars of claim to include a public nuisance claim, as it had real prospects of success and would not unduly prolong the trial.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the appeal.
This decision confirms that, under current law, damages for personal injury remain recoverable in public nuisance claims. The court declined to overturn this principle, emphasizing that any development or change in this area of law is a matter for the House of Lords. The direct effect is that the claimants may amend their pleadings to include a public nuisance claim, allowing the issue to be fully litigated at trial. No new precedent altering the law was established by this decision.