The case of Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 1 All ER 53 is a landmark decision in English tort law that significantly influenced the scope and applicability of liability in nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The ruling established that foreseeability of damage is a necessary element in claims under nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, bringing them in line with negligence principles. Additionally, the case suggested that Rylands v Fletcher is not an independent tort but rather a subset of nuisance, a view later affirmed in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003].
This case remains a pivotal precedent in environmental and property law, particularly regarding the limits of strict liability in pollution cases and the remoteness of damage. It reshaped how courts interpret liability for environmental harm and set new requirements for claimants seeking damages for contamination.
Facts of Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc
The claimant, Cambridge Water Co Ltd, was responsible for supplying potable water to residents of Cambridge and its surrounding areas. In 1976, the company acquired a borehole in Sawston to address increasing demand. The borehole was fully operational by 1979 and had undergone initial safety tests that confirmed its suitability for public consumption.
Meanwhile, the defendant, Eastern Counties Leather plc, operated a tannery in Sawston, engaging in the leather tanning process. A key part of its operations involved using perchloroethene (PCE) as a degreasing agent. Over time, significant quantities of PCE leaked from containers and machinery, with estimates suggesting that around 3,200 gallons of PCE were spilled annually. These small but consistent spills seeped into the ground, eventually contaminating the chalk groundwater system that supplied Cambridge Water Co Ltd’s borehole.
In 1980, a European Directive mandated that member states set maximum permissible levels for PCE in drinking water. The United Kingdom implemented these regulations in 1982, at which point the borehole was found to be contaminated. As a result, Cambridge Water Co Ltd had to cease using the borehole and search for an alternative water source, incurring substantial costs. Despite the fact that PCE contamination was not known to be harmful prior to 1980, Cambridge Water Co Ltd pursued legal action against Eastern Counties Leather plc under claims of nuisance, negligence, and liability under Rylands v Fletcher.
Legal Issues
The primary legal question in Cambridge Water Co Ltd versus Eastern Counties Leather plc was whether the requirement of foreseeability of harm should apply to claims under nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, just as it does in negligence. The case also raised issues concerning the remoteness of damage, specifically whether the contamination of a borehole located 1.3 miles away from the source of pollution was too remote to warrant liability.
Another key issue was whether Rylands v Fletcher should be considered an independent doctrine of strict liability or merely a sub-category of nuisance. Lord Goff’s ruling in this case would later influence the legal standing of Rylands v Fletcher in subsequent cases, particularly in environmental liability matters.
Decisions of the Courts in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc
High Court Decision
In the first instance, the High Court of Justice dismissed the claims under nuisance, negligence, and Rylands v Fletcher. Kennedy J held that liability could not be imposed because the damage was not foreseeable at the time the defendant engaged in its activities. This meant that Eastern Counties Leather plc could not reasonably have predicted that small-scale spills of PCE would lead to contamination of a water supply 1.3 miles away.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision, ruling in favour of Cambridge Water Co Ltd. The court relied on an obscure precedent to justify imposing liability, concluding that Eastern Counties Leather plc was responsible for the contamination regardless of whether the damage was foreseeable at the time.
House of Lords Decision
On final appeal, the House of Lords, led by Lord Goff, reinstated the High Court’s original decision and ruled in favour of Eastern Counties Leather plc. Lord Goff’s judgment set out several key principles that reshaped the law:
- Foreseeability of Damage is Required: The House of Lords held that foreseeability of harm is a necessary requirement in both nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher claims. This aligned these areas of law with the principles of negligence. Lord Goff cited Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co (The Wagon Mound No. 2), which established that foreseeability should be a criterion for liability in nuisance claims.
- Remoteness of Damage: The contamination of Cambridge Water Co Ltd’s borehole was deemed too remote. Eastern Counties Leather plc could not reasonably have foreseen in the 1960s or 1970s that small PCE spills could travel over a mile through groundwater and cause contamination, particularly given that PCE regulations only emerged in 1980.
- Rylands v Fletcher is a Sub-Set of Nuisance: Lord Goff suggested that Rylands v Fletcher was not a stand-alone principle of strict liability but merely an extension of nuisance law. He argued that the concepts of “non-natural use” under Rylands v Fletcher and “unreasonable use” in nuisance were closely related. This view was later affirmed in Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003), which confirmed that Rylands v Fletcher should be treated as part of nuisance law rather than an independent tort.
Conclusion
The ruling in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc remains a landmark in English tort law, fundamentally altering how nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher claims are assessed. By introducing foreseeability of damage as a requirement, the case narrowed the scope of strict liability and clarified the relationship between nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher. Despite some criticisms, it has played a crucial role in shaping modern environmental liability law in the UK.
