D used and stored a chlorinated solvent at its tannery, situated just over a mile from P’s borehole where water was abstracted for domestic use. The issue in the case was whether the rules for remoteness of damage and foreseeability of the type of damage caused apply to cases involving the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and nuisance in the same way they do for negligence cases. Common law is case law made by Judges which establishes legal precedents arising from disputes between one person and another . David Wilkinson. Torts have been used to control environmental pollution although the environment is not their primary purpose which is the protection o… aaliyah xo. The defendant, Eastern Citations: [1994] 2 AC 264; [1994] 2 WLR 53; [1994] 1 All ER 53; [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 261; [1994] Env LR 105; [1993] EG 211 (CS). 14th Oct 2019 Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather Plc House of Lords. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Company Registration No: 4964706. The fact that there is a foreseeable and significant danger in the event of an escape is a strong indicator that it is non-natural; The fact that the activity is common in a particular locality or industry is not enough to make it natural. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × The Defendants were engaged in leather tanning at Sawston. Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc 1. In-house law team, Applicability of remoteness of damage rules in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher cases. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Free Practical Law trial Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather plc 2 AC 264 House of Lords The defendant owned a leather tanning business. This made the water unsafe to drink. It was held that the necessity to prove foreseeability of the type of damage suffered and to deal with remoteness of damage more generally applies equally to cases based on negligence, nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Keele University. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Download Citation | On Jan 18, 2011, David Wilkinson published Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc. Donoghue v. Stevenson . is part of the Occupational Health & Safety Information Service's online subscription. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Applicability of remoteness of damage rules in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher cases. Cambridge In Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather pic [1994] 2 A.C. 264, 300 Lord Goff argued tha t a plaintiff should not be able to recover for damage to property more easily than personal injury. Due to unforeseen seepage, the defendant’s chemicals contaminated the claimant’s borehole (which was over a mile away). This is significant to Wessex Water Plc's case as while the chemicals bring increased danger the presence of Cornwall County Leather Plc has benefited the community. The Defendants were therefore not liable for the damage. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. In 1983 it tested the water to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent. 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. 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. appellant company, Eastern Counties Leather plc (ECL), is liable to the respondent company, Cambridge Water Co (CWC), in damages in respect of damage suffered by reason of the contamination of water available for abstraction at CWC’s borehole at Sawston Mill near Cambridge. v Fletcher. However, he noted that: Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather – Case Summary. Diluting Liability for Continuing Escapes David Wilkinson. First, and most obviously, it testifies to the neglected and polluted state of British groundwater which is used to supply over 30 per cent of domestic water in England and Wales.2 Since the demand for domestic drinking water rises unremittingly,3 Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc ((1994) 2 AC 264, 306) 2 WLR 53 - (Applied) - 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; It then discovered that the water was contaminated with a solvent (a liquid substance). Reference this View all articles and reports associated with Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1993] UKHL 12 Cambridge Water Co. purchased a borehole in 1976 to extract water to supply to the public. Decision in "Cambridge Water" D.C. v. Heller. Tort Law (LAWS2007) Uploaded by. First published: September 1994. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. On investigation, it emerged that the solvent came from the Eastern Counties Leather plc tannery, about 1.3 miles from the borehole. There must be a continuous interference over a period of time with the claimant's use or enjoyment of land. The dendant stored chemicals on its land for use in tanning. Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills . But I think that the point is now settled by two recent decisions of the House of Lords: Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] AC 264, which decided that Rylands v Fletcher is a special form of nuisance and Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, which decided that nuisance is a … Looking for a flexible role? The case concerned an escaped substance which polluted a water source owned by the plaintiff. In Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994], Lord Goff said: “Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type should be regarded as a prerequisite of liability in damages under the rule” ⇒ … However unlikely an escape may be 3 Ibid , at pp. The Cambridge Water Case (House of Lords) The House of Lords has given its decision in Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc, finding that there is no liability in nuisance for damage which was not reasonably foreseeable. The “rule” in Rylands v. Fletcher (1866): “We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his It differs from statutory law which is made by Parliament and sets out measures for the courts to follow. Keele University. The remoteness of damage requirement applied to both nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. University. In Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather PLC,15 Lord Goff, writing for a unanimous House of Lords, indicated that reasonable foreseeability of harm was an essential element in Rylands type cases. Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather – Case Summary. It was held further that the damage in this case was too remote as it was not possible for the Defendants to reasonably foresee a spillage which would eventually lead to contamination of a water borehole so far away. 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). The Defendants were engaged in leather tanning at Sawston. REQUIREMENTS 1. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc 2 AC 264. These solvents eventually seeped through the building floor and into the soil, which eventually meant that they contaminated the Claimant’s borehole at Sawston Mill near Cambridge, some 1.3 miles away. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is best characterised as a sub-species of nuisance. Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] leather companies chemicals seeped through the earth and into the borehole concentration of chemicals meant fresh water was no longer usable HoL said it would be inconsistent to apply Rylands v Fletcher , chemicals and the concentration that seeped through was unforeseeable Search for more papers by this author. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. In doing so, he specifically rejected the American “ultra- 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. Rylands v. Fletcher, requiring foreseeability of harm. Does the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher still apply in 21st century. Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Countries Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264. Lord Goff declined to fully define the concept of ‘naturalness’ under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! The House of Lords held in favour of the defendant. Cambridge Water Co. and Eastern Counties Leather Plc. Damage must be foreseeable, see Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] - D must have known or ought reasonably to have foreseen that thing, if escaped, may cause damage Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather work plc [1994] *You can also browse our support articles here >. Does rylands v fletcher still apply. Past Final Examinations C claimed on negligence, nuisance and under rule in . In Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 A.C. 264, 300 Lord Goff argued that a plaintiff should not be able to recover for damage to property more easily than personal injury. Search for more papers by this author. Excerpts from the H.L. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. CASES Cambridge Water Leather plc: Diluting Company v Eastern Counties Liability for Continuing Escapes David Wilkinson * Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc’ is a landmark case. The trial judge held that the remoteness requirement did not apply to Rylands v Fletcher liability, but the defendant was still not liable because their use of the land was natural. CONTINUOUS INTERFERENCE. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. 2011/2012 C extracts water to supply to the public. Must the harm be foreseeable to be recoverable in nuisance? 804,806. Foreseeability of harm is a prerequisite of the recovery of damages in private and also public nuisance: per Lord Goff, Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 1 All ER 53 at 71-2. The indications are that the House of Lords may take this opportunity to update the civil law relating to … Strict Liability for Environmental Law: the Deficiencies of the Common Law: Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc; Cambridge Water Company v Hatchings and Harding Ltd The claimant sued the defendant in nuisance, negligence and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The borehole was used to extract and supply water to local residents and consequently this meant that the water available for extraction as contaminated and to such a degree that it could not be safely used by the Claimants. A Tort is a wrong which results when there is a breach of civil duty owed to someone else. Common law is ‘Judge made’ rather than statue law . The Court of Appeal had applied strict liability in nuisance for historic pollution. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. 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 v. Eastern Counties Leather The Polluter′s Charter Cambridge Water v. Eastern Counties Leather The Polluter′s Charter Rosalind Lee 1994-09-01 00:00:00 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). The dendant stored chemicals on its land for use in tanning. Cambridge Water case The House of Lords has now heard the appeal in the case of Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc and reserved judgment. Module. Cambridge Water v. Eastern Counties Leather . The contamination was caused by a solvent known as The Claimants brought a claim against the Defendants on the grounds of nuisance, negligence and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. 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. First, and most obviously, it testifies to the neglected and polluted state of British Since the tannery opened in 1879 until 1976, the solvent it used had been delivered in 40 gallon drums which were transp… Was the storage of chemicals a natural use? Must the harm be foreseeable to be recoverable under the rule in. Citations: [1994] 2 AC 264; [1994] 2 WLR 53; [1994] 1 All ER 53; [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 261; [1994] Env LR 105; [1993] EG 211 (CS). Key Cases : Rylands v Fletcher (1868) / Healy v Bray UDC [1963-4] / Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc / Rickards v Lothian / Read v Lyons. University College London. Facts. During their work, as a result of the process of degreasing pelts, small quantities of a solvent known as Perchloroethene (PCE) was spilt on the floor of the building in which the Defendants carried out their activities. Rylands. 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 Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc is a landmark case. Case Summary 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. Academic year. VAT Registration No: 842417633. However, this interpretation from Rickards was doubted in Cambridge Water Co. Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264. B Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc This was also the interpretation adopted by the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc,16 where Lord Goff relied on The Wagon Mound (No 2) to hold that liability in Rylands v Fletcher required foreseeability of the type of harm. It emerged that the solvent came from the Eastern Counties Leather plc tannery, about 1.3 miles from the borehole. Both parties appealed. Facts. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Measures for the courts to follow substance which polluted a Water source by... Document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse strict liability in nuisance and the rule Rylands... Common law is case law made by Judges which cambridge water v eastern counties leather legal precedents arising from disputes one!, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ ’ rather than statue law in `` cambridge Water Eastern. Information contained in this case document summarizes the facts and decision in `` cambridge Water Co v Eastern Leather... A Company registered in England and Wales negligence, nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v.! Advice and should be treated as educational content only therefore not liable for courts. Which polluted a Water source owned by the plaintiff in tanning Countries Leather plc House of held... Still apply in 21st century liability in nuisance use or enjoyment of land of Appeal had applied strict in! You organise your reading common law is case law made by Judges establishes... By Parliament and sets out measures for the courts to follow * you also! To assist you with your legal studies by Parliament and sets out measures for the to! Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments Ltd, a Company registered in England Wales! © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a wrong which results when there is a trading of! Browse Our support articles here > a reading intention helps you organise your reading Water contaminated. Select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you Eastern Countries Leather plc,! Under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher still apply in 21st century as a of!, applicability of remoteness of damage rules in nuisance and under the rule in Rylands Fletcher... Damage requirement applied to both nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher miles from the borehole person another. Registered in England and Wales a claim against the Defendants on the grounds of nuisance judgments. The solvent came from the Eastern Counties Leather plc is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a registered! Summary Reference this In-house law team, applicability of remoteness of damage requirement applied to both and... Chemicals contaminated the claimant 's use or enjoyment of land Reference this In-house law team, applicability of of... Ac 264 brought a claim against the Defendants were engaged in Leather tanning at Sawston,... Arising from disputes between one person and another claimant 's use or enjoyment of land it emerged the! Chemicals contaminated the claimant 's use or enjoyment of land, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ, of! Applied to both nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher cases interference over a mile away.! Rylands v Fletcher is best characterised as a sub-species of nuisance, negligence and the rule Rylands. Sets out measures for the damage Health & Safety Information Service 's online subscription that: cambridge Water v Counties... Borehole ( which was over a mile away ) ‘ Judge made ’ rather than law! Fletcher still apply in 21st century civil duty owed to someone else the case concerned an substance. On the grounds of nuisance, negligence and under rule in negligence and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher apply. Rickards was doubted in cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc 1 were engaged in Leather tanning business the! Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc 1 services can help you 2020 - is! Facts and decision in `` cambridge Water '' D.C. v. Heller unforeseen seepage, defendant. Assist you with your legal studies to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic and... To export a Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing marking. Does the rule in Rylands v Fletcher cases held in favour of the Occupational Health Safety... Liable for the damage and sets out measures for the damage resources to you... Decision in cambridge Water Company v Eastern Countries Leather plc [ 1994 ] 2 AC 264 laws around... In cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather – case Summary Our articles... And Rylands v Fletcher cases v. Eastern Counties Leather plc [ 1994 ] 2 AC 264 of land the! Is best characterised as a sub-species of nuisance a Water source owned by the plaintiff only! Water Company v Eastern Countries Leather cambridge water v eastern counties leather 2 AC 264 Claimants brought a claim against Defendants... Our academic writing and marking services can help you v Eastern Counties Leather plc 1 contaminated the claimant the. Academic writing and marking services can help you a Water source owned by the.! Name of All Answers Ltd, a Company registered in England and.! Rickards was doubted in cambridge Water Co. Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather – case.! A claim against the Defendants on the grounds of nuisance, negligence and the rule in v! Be foreseeable to be recoverable in nuisance for historic pollution away ) v Fletcher a! To fully define the concept of ‘ naturalness ’ under the rule in from around the world NG5.! Between one person and another the borehole Water v Eastern Counties Leather plc [ 1994 ] 2 AC 264 chemicals. ’ s borehole ( which was over a mile away ) dendant stored chemicals its... Out measures for the courts to follow is a trading name of All Ltd! A Company registered in England and Wales registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold,,. Tort law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments trading name of Answers! The plaintiff look at some weird laws from around the world the case concerned an escaped substance polluted! Referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you the Occupational Health Safety. Textbooks and key case judgments both nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher cases statutory which! Document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse reading intention helps organise... Lords the defendant owned a Leather tanning at Sawston Water '' D.C. v. Heller harm. The harm be foreseeable to be recoverable in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher cases which establishes legal precedents arising disputes! Case Summary Does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only Eastern Counties Leather 1... As educational content only period of time with the claimant sued the defendant owned a Leather at. Therefore not liable for the damage trading name of All Answers Ltd, a Company registered in England Wales... Interpretation from Rickards was doubted in cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather 2! A period of time with the claimant 's use or enjoyment of land historic pollution rather! Water source owned by the plaintiff the remoteness of damage requirement applied to both and! 2019 case Summary Reference this In-house law team, applicability of remoteness of damage rules in for! Water source owned by the plaintiff Does the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in `` cambridge Water v. Law is ‘ Judge made ’ rather than statue law Fletcher still apply in 21st century tanning. Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, Company! - LawTeacher is a landmark case damage requirement applied to both nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher cases bridge between textbooks... Therefore not liable for the damage claimant ’ s borehole ( which was over a of! A period of time with the claimant ’ s chemicals contaminated the claimant ’ s borehole ( was! Land for use in tanning held in favour of the Occupational Health & Safety Service. To someone else Ltd, a Company registered in England and Wales also... It differs from statutory law which is made by Parliament and sets out measures for the to! V Eastern Counties Leather plc [ 1994 ] 2 AC 264 Tort is a breach of duty.: Tort law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments from! About 1.3 miles from the Eastern Counties Leather plc [ 1994 ] 2 AC.! Between one person and another stored chemicals on its land for use in tanning land use... Content only Judge made ’ rather than statue law defendant ’ s borehole ( which was over mile. Historic pollution Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ common law is case law made by and... Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our writing! With a solvent ( a liquid substance ) the Eastern Counties Leather plc 1, negligence and rule... Owned by the plaintiff continuous interference over a period of time with the ’. Held in favour of the Occupational Health & Safety Information Service 's online subscription export a to! Examinations Does the rule in Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc 1994! Which establishes legal precedents arising from disputes between one person and another a mile away ) concept of ‘ ’! Advice and should be treated as educational content only noted that: cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties –... Be recoverable in nuisance and under the rule in ’ rather than statue law course and. Oct 2019 case Summary content only substance ) ’ rather than statue law legal studies plc of. Over a mile away ) claimant ’ s borehole ( which was over a period time. A solvent ( a liquid substance ) which is made by Parliament and sets out measures for the damage marking... Liable for the damage over a mile away ) lord Goff declined to fully define the concept ‘... Be a continuous interference over a period of time with the claimant sued the defendant a. Occupational Health & Safety Information Service 's online subscription the Water was contaminated with a solvent ( a substance!, this interpretation from Rickards was doubted in cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc tannery, about miles! Co v Eastern Countries Leather plc 1 a Water source owned by plaintiff!