Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
that case the blockage and breakdown was within the system of the ‘active operations’ which led to the creation and storage of the pollutant, while in the present case the drainage system was nothing to do with the system for storing and using the effluent. That factual difference made no difference in law. The submission must fail on a proper understanding of the strict liability established by s 31. It would defeat the object of the legislation if a landowner who chooses to keep on his land matter capable of polluting should it escape is liable for the non-negligent breakdown of the system for dealing with the matter but is not liable for the non-negligent breakdown of another system (in the present case drainage) within his control and utilised for his purpose. CODIFICATION AND LAW REFORM PROPOSALS
DOI link for that case the blockage and breakdown was within the system of the ‘active operations’ which led to the creation and storage of the pollutant, while in the present case the drainage system was nothing to do with the system for storing and using the effluent. That factual difference made no difference in law. The submission must fail on a proper understanding of the strict liability established by s 31. It would defeat the object of the legislation if a landowner who chooses to keep on his land matter capable of polluting should it escape is liable for the non-negligent breakdown of the system for dealing with the matter but is not liable for the non-negligent breakdown of another system (in the present case drainage) within his control and utilised for his purpose. CODIFICATION AND LAW REFORM PROPOSALS
that case the blockage and breakdown was within the system of the ‘active operations’ which led to the creation and storage of the pollutant, while in the present case the drainage system was nothing to do with the system for storing and using the effluent. That factual difference made no difference in law. The submission must fail on a proper understanding of the strict liability established by s 31. It would defeat the object of the legislation if a landowner who chooses to keep on his land matter capable of polluting should it escape is liable for the non-negligent breakdown of the system for dealing with the matter but is not liable for the non-negligent breakdown of another system (in the present case drainage) within his control and utilised for his purpose. CODIFICATION AND LAW REFORM PROPOSALS
ABSTRACT
Regarding novus actus interveniens, cl 17(2) states: A person does not cause a result where, after he does such an act or makes such an omission, an act or event occurs:
(a) which is the immediate and sufficient cause of the result;
(b) which he did not foresee; and
(c) which could not in the circumstances reasonably have been foreseen.
