LMS International v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd [2005] EWHC 2065
Non-natural use of land, negligent storing of dangerous material
Facts
The First Defendants operated a factory in a Bradford Industrial Estate, which was owned by the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants. The first defendants, who were owned by the other defendants and of whom the other defendants were shareholders, used the premises to make polystyrene blocks where were used for insulation and polystyrene mouldings which were used for packaging. In August 2003, a fire started on their premises. This fire started while one of the First Defendant’s employees was cutting expanded polystyrene blocks with a hot wire machine. The fire spread very quickly even though the fire brigade responded rapidly and the premises of the First Defendant were destroyed. In addition, the fire, as well as smoke, spread to the adjacent premises of the claimants and also caused damage to the claimants’ premises and what was inside. The claimants made a claim under negligence, nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Issues
The issue in the case was whether what the First Defendants had done constituted a natural and non-natural use of the land and whether bringing polystyrene blocks onto their property was sufficient to allow liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that there was liability under the rule of Rylands v Fletcher. The defendant s had both accumulated a dangerous thing on their land which was flammable and their activity constituted non-natural use of the land, particularly because of the way they stored the flammable material (next to hot wire cutting machines) which increased the risk of starting a fire. In addition, the First Defendant was found liable in negligence, as well as nuisance.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC) is a real and reported decision of the Technology and Construction Court, and the summary correctly identifies the key findings on negligence, nuisance, and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
However, readers should be aware of the broader legal context. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher remains part of English law, but its scope continues to be narrow. The House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 confirmed that foreseeability of damage is required, and in Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 the House of Lords reaffirmed that the threshold for “non-natural use” is high and that the rule should not be abolished. The present case is consistent with those authorities. No subsequent Supreme Court decision has materially altered the legal position set out in this summary. The article can therefore be read with confidence, subject to the caveat that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is applied restrictively and successful claims remain uncommon.
