Rubis Bahamas Ltd v Lillian Antoinette Russell (The Bahamas)

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for physical damage caused by the escape of an exceptionally dangerous thing kept on land. Liability rests on the person who creates the relevant risk, not necessarily the owner or occupier. The rule is not displaced merely because the activity is commonplace, permitted by the locality, or beneficial to the community. A specialised activity involving substantial quantities of petroleum products may therefore constitute a non-natural use of land. Failure to challenge evidence in cross-examination does not mechanically determine the facts. The trial judge must assess the evidence as a whole. Damages must be confined to loss proved to have resulted from the relevant escape and cannot be based on speculation.

Lillian Russell claimed damages from Rubis Bahamas Ltd for contamination of her property opposite a petrol station. She relied on a 1994 leak and a further leak in 2012. The trial judge accepted the claims and awarded $692,825, but gave little reasoning and made no proper factual finding on whether the 2012 leak had migrated to the Russell property.

The Court of Appeal rejected liability for the 1994 leak, upheld liability for the 2012 leak under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and substituted damages of $159,450. The appeal concerned whether migration had been proved, whether Rubis was liable for any resulting damage, and whether the damages assessment was valid.

The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court of The Bahamas.

1. Migration and cross-examination. The trial judge wrongly treated the failure to cross-examine Mr Bowleg on migration from the 2012 leak as decisive. Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 and Griffiths v TUI (UK) Ltd [2023] UKSC 48; [2025] AC 374 establish a flexible rule of procedural fairness. A party should challenge material evidence which it asks the court not to accept, but the omission does not place the judge in a straitjacket. The judge must evaluate the evidence as a whole. A bare ipse dixit unsupported by reasons need not be challenged.
2. Reasons and remittal. A bald statement accepting pleaded claims cannot constitute a judicial decision without relevant findings and reasons. Neither court below assessed the evidence or made a finding on the key migration issue. That pure question of fact should be determined at first instance. The Board therefore remitted the issue, with any damages assessment to follow only if liability is engaged.
3. Liability under Rylands. Liability is imposed on the person who creates the risk by bringing the dangerous thing onto and keeping it on the land. Ownership or occupation is neither necessary nor sufficient. Rubis required the site to operate as a service station, required its fuel to be stored there, supplied the equipment, and retained substantial control over inspection, maintenance and repair. It was therefore potentially liable, even though Fiorente also might have been liable.
4. Non-natural use. The storage of substantial quantities of petroleum products is a specialised and exceptionally dangerous activity. Its being commonplace or beneficial to the community does not defeat strict liability. The Court of Appeal’s damages assessment was set aside because it did not distinguish damage caused by the 2012 leak from pre-existing damage caused by the 1994 leak and relied on speculation.

The Board reserved the question whether personal injury is recoverable under the rule, expressing doubt about contrary dicta in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd.

1. Privy Council allowed the appeal and remitted the outstanding factual issue, with damages to be reconsidered if necessary.
2. Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas allowed the appeal in part, rejected Rubis’s liability for the 1994 leak, upheld liability for the 2012 leak under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and substituted damages of $159,450.
3. Supreme Court of The Bahamas accepted the claims concerning both leaks and awarded damages of $692,825.