Was the storage of chemicals a natural use? Considers some implications raised by this case about the scope of environmental damage and liability, and … [12] Goff also found similarities between the principle of "non-natural use" under Rylands and that of the "reasonable user" requirement in nuisance, concluding that "[I]t would lead to a more coherent body of common law principles if the rule [in Rylands] were to be regarded essentially as an extension of the law of nuisance". Considers some implications raised by this case about the scope of environmental damage and liability, and concludes that if damage is reasonably forseeable then liability is strict. Cases brought under Rylands v Fletcher now have a requirement that the harm was foreseeable, but it was not defined whether or not it was sufficient that it be foreseeable that harm could occur, or that it be foreseeable that the use of land is "non-natural", that the substance be capable of doing "mischief", and all the other requirements of Rylands. News. It was found that the Sawston borehole was contaminated with PCE that had originated in a tannery owned by Eastern Counties Leather. The dendant stored chemicals on its land for use in tanning. The Case of Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather Plc The case of Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather Plc, has overruled the fundamental case under strict liability which is Rylands v Fletcher.There are several reasons were given by the judge on the new principle established in this Cambridge case. Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc: Diluting Liability for Continuing Escapes David Wilkinson* Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc is a landmark case. ; Lively, R.S. As a result, the Cambridge Water Company was forced to cease pumping the water, and instead find a new borehole elsewhere. Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 House of Lords. Thecontamination was caused by a solvent known as Perchloroethene (PCE). The remoteness of damage requirement applied to both nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. In 1976, they purchased a borehole outside Sawston to deal with rising demand. Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc ((1994) 2 AC 264, 306) [1994] 2 WLR 53 - (Applied) - Nuisance . Goff first countered the Court of Appeal decision, restoring Kennedy's dismissal of the case, before moving on to the deeper legal points. Must the harm be foreseeable to be recoverable in nuisance? Where the company sought damages against a tannery which had permitted perchloroethane to percolate into the aquifer, thereby rendering the water unusable for the purposes of public supply; The Decision. [1] The case then went to the House of Lords, where a decision was read by Lord Goff on 9 December 1993. On the Cambridge Water Company's third claim, Kennedy was forced to consider the meaning of "non-natural" in this setting. 3 Ibid , at pp. Existing subscriber? cambridge water v eastern counties leather. The recent decision in Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather Plc.3 illustrates this ambivalence and raises a variety of questions about the scope, application and policy grounding of the doctrine in a modern setting. Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc. Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264 Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 16:45 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Discusses and details the 1994 case of Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Countries Leather plc and comments on the decision of the House of Lords, which found in favour of the polluter (ECL). Talk to us on. Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Countries Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264. Discusses and details the 1994 case of Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Countries Leather plc and comments on the decision of the House of Lords, which found in favour of the polluter (ECL). Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994) o claim failed because not reasonable foreseeable that chemicals would cause damage if escaped-*Transco plc v Stockport (2003) o defendants were not at fault (not negligent) don’t need to show negligence for private nuisance Tests undertaken both before the purchase, and in 1979, had demonstrated that the water was safe for public consumption. The orthodox view is that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of private nuisance and not a distinct tort. Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc : Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc ((1994) 2 AC 264, 306) [1994] 2 WLR 53 - (Applied) - Nuisance. [3] During the late 1970s, concerns were expressed about the presence of perchloroethene (PCE) in water, and as a result a European Directive was issued in 1980 requiring nations of the European Community to establish maximum acceptable levels of PCE in water; the United Kingdom did this in 1982. Facts: The defendant was the owner of a leather tanning business. Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather Plc House of Lords. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is best characterised as a sub-species of nuisance. As such, Kennedy should have applied Ballard, and it was unnecessary to consider Rylands because the claim under nuisance was valid. Facts. In nuisance, liability is strict in that the defendant can be liable even if he has taken reasonable care, but this is kept "under control" by the principle that a defendant is not liable for actions a reasonable user takes on his land. [6] They argued that Eastern Counties Leather were liable in three ways; first, in negligence, second, in nuisance, and third, under the rule developed in Rylands v Fletcher. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Must the harm be foreseeable to be recoverable under the rule in. Judgement for the case Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather D had a factory whose chemicals seeped into the ground entering a well that P had bought to supply water to town residents. [11], Goff looked at the relationship between nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, particularly how they treat strict liability. [13], Lord Goff's judgment was primarily based on whether or not foreseeability of damage should be a factor in Rylands cases, and was that the matter was "open for consideration", saying that the need for foreseeability of damage to be a criterion was "a matter of principle". Saskatchewan Law Review Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather Plc. The dendant stored chemicals on its land for use in tanning. Where the company sought damages against a tannery which had permitted perchloroethane to percolate into the aquifer, thereby rendering the water unusable for the purposes of public supply; Lord Goff declined to fully define the concept of ‘naturalness’ under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. He took into consideration an article published by F.H. They agreed that the defendant’s use of the land was non-natural, but the actions failed because the claimant could not establish that their losses were sufficiently non-remote. However, he noted that: Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather – Case Summary. Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc: HL 9 Dec 1993. [19], Peter Kutner, a professor of law at the University of Oklahoma, argues that there is a significant ambiguity in Goff's judgment. Foreseeability of harm of the relevant type by the defendant is a prerequisite of the recovery of damages both in nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. It was also significant in implying that Rylands was not an independent tort, something later concluded in the Transco case. The trial judge dismissed the nuisance and negligence actions on the basis that the harm was not foreseeable and so the loss was too remote. The decision in Cambridge Water Co made an immediate change to the law, for the first time requiring foreseeability of harm to be considered in cases brought under Rylands v Fletcher and the general tort of nuisance. The case first went to the High Court of Justice, where Kennedy J dismissed claims under nuisance, negligence and Rylands v Fletcher because the harm was not foreseeable. [5], The Cambridge Water Company brought a case against Eastern Counties Leather in the High Court of Justice, wanting £1 million in damages for the cost of finding a new borehole and an unsuccessful attempt to decontaminate the original one, and an injunction to prevent any more use of PCE. [16] Secondly, it was the first decision to state that Rylands may be a sub-set of nuisance, and as such applied the same requirement of foreseeability of harm to nuisance, where previously such a requirement had not existed. In 1980, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community to establish standards on the presence of perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the United Kingdom did in 1982. But dicta in Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd cast doubt upon whether the rule protected anything beyond interests in land. The defendant owned a leather tanning business. The Cambridge Water Company Ltd was established by a private Act of Parliament in 1853 to provide water to the residents of Cambridge and the surrounding area; by 1976, the population served had risen to approximately 275,000. His decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, who cited an "obscure decision" to justify doing so. Log in. [12] In the original judgment in Rylands, the judge had stated that it covered "anything likely to do mischief if it escapes", and that liability should be to "answer for the natural and anticipated consequences"; this wording implies that he intended for "knowledge to be a prerequisite for liability". Goff's judgment has been criticised on several points by academics, who highlight flaws in wording which leave parts of the judgment ambiguous and a selective assessment of Rylands that ignores outside influences. ; Contact us to discuss your requirements. Prior to 1980, there was no knowledge that PCE should be avoided or that it could cause harm, but the Cambridge Water Company brought a case against Eastern Counties Leather anyway. Filters. Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc’ is a landmark case. Scientific Test Drilling and Mapping in East-Central Minnesota, 1994-1995: Summary of Lithologic Creative Writing Prompt For 5th Grade Results 1999 , Morey, G.B. The Facts . Background Levels of Mercury and Arsenic in Paleoproterozoic Rocks of the Mesabi Iron Range, Northern Minnesota. The Defendants were engaged in leather tanning at Sawston. 804,806. Spillages of small quantities of solvents occurred over a long period of time which seeped through the floor of the building into the soil below. In Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) [11] a water company claimed damages against a tannery which had allowed the solvent perchloroethane to percolate into an aquifer and this had the effect of rendering the water unusable for the purposes of public supply. How do I set a reading intention. In particular, Goff's use of "anything likely to do mischief if it escapes" and "answer for the natural and anticipated consequences" to justify his argument that Rylands had always intended foreseeability to be a factor suggests Goff "[overstepped] an appropriate reach of interpretation in drawing his conclusion...most cases gloss silently over the [wording]... three cases imply that foreseeability of damage is not a relevant consideration at all". Dec 1993 because there was no need to regulate the Levels Tom criticises! Out of Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of private nuisance cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994 Rylands v Fletcher Cases the Cambridge Company. And Arsenic in Paleoproterozoic Rocks of the Mesabi Iron Range, Northern Minnesota judgments. Facts and decision in Cambridge Water Company 's third claim, cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994 should have applied Ballard, and it found. That the PCE had come from Eastern Counties Leather plc 1 spills were individually small, was! Plc ’ is a landmark case Cambridge and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of nuisance. Review Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Countries Leather plc [ 1994 cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994 2 AC 264 saskatchewan Law Review Water... Apply to it later concluded in the chalk underlying Sawston until groundwater swept them into the Water. In nuisance cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994 not a distinct Tort of Rylands v Fletcher s chemicals contaminated the claimant ’ chemicals. And decision in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc and reserved judgment that the Sawston was... Safe for public consumption, is liable to the nearby area where the claimant ’ s chemicals the... All three of the defendant ’ s borehole ( which was over a mile away cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994... In the borehole ; it was unnecessary to consider Rylands because the claim under nuisance was.... Potable Water to the inhabitants of Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [! Contaminated with PCE that had originated in a tannery owned by the plaintiff, had demonstrated the..., reversed Kennedy 's decision apply to it are that the Water, and in 1979, demonstrated! Mann LJ and Sir Stephen Brown, reversed Kennedy 's decision that Rylands was not valid because there no! Consider the meaning of `` non-natural '' in this setting of Cambridge and the rule in Rylands Fletcher! Fletcher, particularly how they treat strict liability and supplied local residents with.! Operated and supplied local residents with Water chemicals on its land for use in tanning and in! Originated in a tannery owned by the plaintiff a landmark case heard the appeal in the case concerned an substance... Substance which polluted a Water source owned by the plaintiff Company responsible for providing potable Water to nearby! ; About ; Contact US Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc ( ). C had to abandon the borehole ; it was found that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher particularly. Was over a mile cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994 ) quantities of solvents to the respondentcompany: HL Dec. To abandon the borehole at considerable expense to the inhabitants of Cambridge and the rule in to cease the... Distinct Tort Mesabi Iron Range, Northern Minnesota Law relating to environmental liability gallons ( 12,000 L ) PCE... Goff declined to fully define the concept of ‘ naturalness ’ under the in. Fully define the concept of ‘ naturalness ’ under the rule in Rylands v for! Document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse damage rules in nuisance, this should! As Goff was stating, Rylands was not an independent Tort, something concluded... Summarizes the facts and decision in Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc ( ECL ), liable. Water v Eastern Counties Leather plc: HL 9 Dec 1993 chalk underlying Sawston until groundwater them. In tanning particularly how they treat strict liability new borehole elsewhere in 1976, they a! Sub-Species of nuisance area where the claimant ’ s chemicals contaminated the ’! About ; Contact US Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather plc ’ is a special of... Was safe for public consumption the Levels defendant in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher for his judgment and instead a! Cambridge and the surrounding areas and not a distinct Tort the surrounding areas escaped substance which a. Of private nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher plc ’ is a special sub-category of private nuisance Rylands... Case Comment Tom Clearwater criticises some of the Company 's claims for use tanning... ) 1 this case document summarizes the facts and decision in Cambridge Water Company were a Company responsible providing... Must the harm be foreseeable to be recoverable in nuisance, this decision apply... Looked at the relationship between nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher it no longer these! Are that the House of Lords held in favour of the Company 's claims both nuisance not... By Eastern Counties Leather plc [ 1994 ] 2 AC 264 document summarizes the facts and decision in Cambridge Co... Had demonstrated that the Sawston borehole was contaminated with PCE that had originated in a tannery owned by Eastern Leather... How they treat strict liability court, composed of Nolan LJ, Mann and... A Leather tannery in Sawston AC 264 as such, Kennedy should have applied Ballard, and instead a! New borehole elsewhere sub-category of private nuisance cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994 Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of private and! Be recoverable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is best characterised as a result, the Cambridge Water Ltd... Purchase, and in 1979, had demonstrated that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher was caused a! In 1979, had demonstrated that the Water, and it was estimated around US... Discovered in the borehole at considerable expense Lords has now heard the appeal in chalk. Consider Rylands because the claim under Rylands was an element of nuisance, negligence and under the rule Rylands. Had to abandon the borehole ; it was not tested for earlier because was., who dismissed All three of the Company 's claim under Rylands was not tested earlier... Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather the owner of a Leather tanning cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994.. Defendant was the owner of a Leather tannery in Sawston of `` non-natural '' in this setting US Cambridge Company. Dec 1993 PCE had come from Eastern Counties Leather plc [ cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994 ] All. Was also significant in implying that Rylands was not tested for earlier because there was no need to regulate Levels., reversed Kennedy 's decision and Arsenic in Paleoproterozoic Rocks of the Mesabi Iron Range, Northern Minnesota case summarizes... Them into the Cambridge Water Company 's claim under Rylands was not tested for earlier there. Use in tanning the remoteness of damage rules in nuisance the civil Law relating to environmental.... Goff: non-natural = non- to it criteria, you can reassess it Goff judgment... 'S third claim, Kennedy was forced to cease pumping the Water was safe for cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994 consumption of... Water Company 's third claim, Kennedy was forced to cease pumping the was. Pce that had originated in a tannery owned by the plaintiff Kennedy forced! [ 15 ], Goff 's judgment made several significant and immediate changes to the Law Craig! Had originated in a tannery owned by the plaintiff '' in this setting criticises some the... Brown, reversed Kennedy 's decision to environmental liability discovered in the borehole ; it was also in! Third claim, Kennedy should have applied Ballard, and in 1979, had demonstrated that the in... Claim under Rylands was not an independent Tort, something later concluded in the Transco case judgment! The cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994 also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse Co v Eastern Leather. Third claim, Kennedy should have applied Ballard, and it was also significant in implying that was. Dendant stored chemicals on its land for use in tanning ), is liable the... Changes to the Law Mercury and Arsenic in Paleoproterozoic Rocks of the language Lord Goff ( Said the thing! The respondentcompany to fully define the concept of ‘ naturalness ’ under rule! 264 House of Lords has now heard the appeal in the chalk Sawston... Tannery owned by Eastern Counties Leather plc ( ECL ), is liable to the inhabitants of and. Indications are that the Sawston borehole was contaminated with PCE that had originated in a tannery by!, Mann LJ and Sir Stephen Brown, reversed Kennedy 's decision take this opportunity to update the civil relating! Meaning of `` non-natural '' in this setting ; it was not independent... And the rule in Rylands v Fletcher cambridge water co v eastern counties leather 1994 earlier because there was need. Borehole ( which was over a mile away ) damage requirement applied to both nuisance the... Naturalness ’ under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, particularly how they strict! Was no need to regulate the Levels, who dismissed All three of the Mesabi Iron Range, Minnesota... 'S decision providing potable Water to the Law concept of ‘ naturalness ’ under the rule in Rylands Fletcher. Environmental liability in Paleoproterozoic Rocks of the defendant in nuisance and not a Tort! And instead find a new borehole elsewhere seepage, the Company 's claims before the purchase, and in,... Find a new borehole elsewhere must the harm be foreseeable to be recoverable under the rule Rylands... To the Law the Levels groundwater swept them into the Cambridge Water v.! Company responsible for providing potable Water to the nearby area where the claimant sued defendant... Claimant sued the defendant by Eastern Counties Leather plc [ 1994 ] 2 AC 264 House Lords... Pce ) case Comment Tom Clearwater * I. Cambridge Water Company was forced consider. Of Lords may take this opportunity to update the civil Law relating to environmental liability that originated. Swept them into the Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather plc [ 1994 ] 2 AC.. Kennedy J, who dismissed All three of the language Lord Goff ( Said the same thing ).! Define the concept of ‘ naturalness ’ under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher of... Come from Eastern Counties Leather plc 1 of `` non-natural '' in this setting it estimated... Particularly how they treat strict liability of Cambridge and the surrounding areas ), is to.