Leakey & Ors v National Trust is a landmark English nuisance law case that addresses the liability of landowners for natural hazards occurring on their land which cause damage to neighbouring properties. The case is significant for establishing the extent of a landowner’s duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm caused by natural deterioration or natural events. It also clarifies how the courts assess the reasonableness of such steps, considering the landowner’s circumstances.
Facts of Leakey & Ors v National Trust
In Leakey & Ors v National Trust, the claimants owned properties situated at the foot of a large mound of land known as Burrow Mump, which was owned by the defendant National Trust. Over an extended period, soil and debris had been gradually falling from the mound onto the claimants’ land due to natural erosion processes. This slow but persistent natural deterioration presented a risk to the claimant’s properties.
The National Trust, the defendant in this case, had been aware of the risks posed by the mound since 1968. They had sought legal advice regarding their liability and were advised that they would not be responsible for naturally occurring soil slides. Consequently, the National Trust took no preventive measures to stabilise the mound or to protect the claimants’ properties.
Following an exceptionally hot and dry summer in 1976, which was succeeded by unusually heavy rainfall in the autumn, a large crack appeared on the surface of the mound directly above one of the claimant’s houses. Mrs Leakey, one of the claimants, notified the National Trust of this development and even offered to contribute half the cost of any works required to secure the site. However, this offer was rejected by the National Trust.
A few weeks later, a significant fall of soil and debris occurred, damaging the claimants’ properties. The claimants, including Mrs Leakey and other affected neighbours, brought an action against the National Trust in nuisance, arguing that the defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the nuisance caused by the natural hazard on their land.
Legal Issues
The primary legal issues in Leakey & Ors v National Trust were twofold:
- Whether a landowner could be held liable in nuisance for damage caused by a naturally occurring hazard on their land.
- If liability exists, what is the scope of the landowner’s duty in relation to taking steps to mitigate or prevent the nuisance?
The case questioned whether the National Trust, as a landowner aware of a natural hazard on its property, could be held responsible for the damage caused by that hazard despite the absence of any human activity causing the fall.
Leakey & Ors v National Trust Judgement
The Court of Appeal dismissed the National Trust’s appeal and held that the defendant was liable in nuisance. The court relied heavily on the principle established in the earlier Privy Council case of Goldman v Hargrave, which held that a landowner is responsible for naturally occurring hazards on their land if they are aware of the danger and fail to take reasonable steps to abate or remove the hazard.
In Leakey & Ors v National Trust, the court found that the National Trust was aware of the risk posed by the mound and failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate that risk. The National Trust’s failure to act after being informed of the hazard, particularly after Mrs Leakey had alerted them to the large crack and even offered to share the cost of remedial works, constituted a breach of their duty.
The Duty to Take Reasonable Steps
In his judgement, Megaw LJ outlined the framework for assessing the reasonableness of the landowner’s conduct. He explained that the duty owed by the defendant is to do what is reasonable in the circumstances, rather than an absolute obligation to eliminate the hazard entirely.
Megaw LJ emphasised that the assessment of what is reasonable must be made by reference to the individual defendant’s particular circumstances, including financial means and physical capacity. For example, where significant expenditure would be required to reduce or eliminate the danger, the defendant’s ability to bear such costs is relevant.
Similarly, where physical effort is necessary to prevent the danger, factors such as the defendant’s age and physical condition may be considered. The approach to reasonableness is necessarily broad and practical rather than narrowly detailed.
Importantly, Megaw LJ also recognised the relevance of the claimant’s own ability to take protective measures. In some cases, the claimant may be able to protect themselves by erecting barriers on their own land or by agreeing to share the costs of works on the defendant’s land. Such considerations may influence what steps it is reasonable to expect the defendant to take.
Liability for Natural Hazards and Omissions
Leakey & Ors v National Trust is significant because it confirms that landowners can be liable for damage caused by natural processes on their land, provided they have knowledge of the hazard and fail to take reasonable steps to prevent or minimise the harm. The case extended nuisance liability beyond artificial or man-made hazards to include natural deterioration or weathering.
The court in Leakey & Ors v National Trust made it clear that liability can arise from an omission — that is, a failure to act — once the landowner is aware of the danger. This is notable because it contrasts with principles of negligence, where liability for pure omissions is generally limited.
While the National Trust argued that they were not liable for natural hazards beyond their control and that preventive action was impractical, the court found this insufficient. The duty to take reasonable steps did not mean they had to cure the nuisance entirely, but some action was necessary once the risk was known.
Relationship with Rylands v Fletcher
The ruling in Leakey & Ors v National Trust aligns with and can be seen as an application of the strict liability principles in Rylands v Fletcher (1868), where a defendant is liable for the escape of a dangerous thing from their land, regardless of fault.
In both cases, liability arises from the defendant’s control over their land and the presence of a hazard that causes harm to neighbours. The difference lies in the nature of the hazard—whether it is a man-made accumulation or a naturally occurring process.
By following this reasoning, the court in Leakey & Ors v National Trust emphasised that landowners cannot avoid responsibility simply because the hazard arises naturally, especially once they have knowledge of the risk.
Conclusion
Leakey & Ors v National Trust is a key authority in nuisance law concerning liability for natural hazards on land. It establishes that landowners who have actual or constructive knowledge of a natural hazard must take reasonable steps to abate or prevent damage to neighbouring properties.
The case underscores that liability can arise not only from positive acts but also from failures to act when a risk is known. The reasonableness of any remedial steps is judged by a broad and practical standard, considering the landowner’s resources and the claimant’s ability to protect themselves.
In summary, Leakey & Ors v National Trust makes clear that landowners cannot ignore natural hazards on their land once aware of the danger, and must exercise reasonable prudence to mitigate risks to their neighbours.
