Legal Case Summary
Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263
Natural versus non-natural use of land, domestic water supply, malicious act of third party
Facts
The claimant rented premises on the second floor of a building which was used for commercial purposes and ran a business from the premises he was renting. The defendant was the owner of that building. He leased the building in parts to various business tenants. The case arose because someone had maliciously blocked all the sinks in the toilets on the fourth floor of the defendant’s building. The same person had then turned on all the taps, clearly with the intention of causing a flood and therefore causing damage. Eventually the flooding on the fourth floor travelled down to the second floor and damaged the property of the claimant. The claimant then started the case, basing himself on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher arguing that he had suffered damage as a result of the escape of the water from the defendant’s premises.
Issues
The issue in this case was whether a finding of non-natural use of land and Rylands v Fletcher liability could be found where an escape (which otherwise might constitute such liability) was caused by the malicious actions of a third party, rather than of the Defendants. Also at issue was whether water in this context could be seen as something not naturally on the land which had been brought to it by the Defendant.
Decision / Outcome
The court held the Defendant to not be liable. First, water supplied to a building is a natural use of the land. The rule of Rylands v Fletcher requires a special use of the land. Second, Rylands v Fletcher liability will not be found where the damage was caused by a wrongful and malicious act of a third party.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263 and its place in the law of tort. The two key principles — that a domestic or ordinary water supply constitutes natural use of land for the purposes of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and that liability will not attach where the escape is caused by the malicious act of a third party — remain good law.
The broader rule in Rylands v Fletcher itself was confirmed and restated by the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264, which emphasised the requirement of non-natural use and foreseeability of damage of the relevant type. The rule was further considered in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, in which the House of Lords confirmed that Rickards v Lothian remains authoritative on what constitutes natural use of land, and upheld the high threshold for establishing non-natural use. Students should read this case alongside those authorities for a complete understanding of the current scope of Rylands v Fletcher liability.
