The Reception of Rylands V. Fletcher Rule in Ceylon: A Review on the Judicial Activism in Introducing Principles of English Law, in Colonial Era

In the British colonial era, even if the British administrative policy based on the decision of Campbell v. Hall was adopted by the proclamation of 1799 in Ceylon, the principles of English law have been introduced through the judicial activism. At times, this caused to create an overlap between the Roman Dutch law and English law in its domestic application. In coming up to this viewpoint, the question, “whether the tort rule in Rylands v. Fletcher is incorporated in the legal system of Sri Lanka” is a controversial issue and there is no judicial consensus in adopting this doctrine in introducing ‘strict liability’ for civil injuries. Therefore, the main objective of this research is to examine the “role of the judiciary” in introducing a tort doctrine to the legal system of Sri Lanka through the judicial interpretation. When considering the judicial attitude in Ceylon in adopting this doctrine, the approach that, “the principle laid down in Fletcher v. Rylands had been adopted in this colony” was followed in some judicial decisions; such as, Elphinstone v. Boustead, Silva v. Silva and Korossa Rubber Company v. Silva. Conversely, in Samed v. Segutamby, the court declared that, “the reception of this principle, didn’t mean that it was a part of the legal system of Sri Lanka. Therefore, the non-consensual judicial attitude on “adopting this tort doctrine in Ceylon” has created an academic debate in introducing the principles of English law through the judicial interpretation. This is a qualitative research, mainly carried out by the reference of secondary data such as judicial decisions, academic writings and e-sources.