The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Fletcher (P) and Rylands (D) had property near to one another. D possessed the land except the mines and veins of coal under the surface. P was possessed of coal mines lying near D's land. D constructed a reservoir separated from P's colliery by intervening land. Under part of the intervening land, P had, by workings lawfully made in his own colliery and the intervening land, opened an underground communication between his own colliery and the old workings under the reservoir. The underground connection between the properties was not known to D nor anyone employed by D. The shafts themselves were filled up with soil; and it was not known to or suspected by Ds, or any of the persons employed by them in making the reservoir, that they led down to old coal workings under its site. The reservoir was constructed over five old shafts, leading down to the workings. When the reservoir was filled with water, it burst down the shafts and flowed by the underground communication into the P's mines. P sued D because he was unable to work his flooded mine for a long time. P was also put to expense in pumping out the water and repairing damage done by it, and lost gains and profits. P also claimed that his workman were scared of the dangers of working the mines and thus his operation was rendered permanently more expensive and more difficult than it had been or would otherwise have continued to be. The colliery was finally abandoned. An arbiter prepared a special case to the Court of the Exchequer.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.