Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 1 All ER 53

Lord Goff of Chievely: My Lords, this appeal is concerned with the question whether the 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. The contamination was caused by a solvent known as perchloroethene (PCE), used by ECL in the process of degreasing pelts at its tanning works in Sawston, about 1.3 miles away from CWC’s borehole, the PCE having seeped into the ground beneath ECL’s works and thence having been conveyed in percolating water in the direction of the borehole. CWC’s claim against ECL was based on three alternative grounds, viz negligence, nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (see Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330; [1861-73] All ER Rep 1; affg Fletcher v Rylands (1866) LR 1 Ex 265). The judge, Ian Kennedy J, dismissed CWC’s claim on all three grounds – on the first two grounds, because (as I will explain hereafter) he held that ECL could not reasonably have foreseen that such damage would occur, and on the third ground because he held that the use of a solvent such as PCE in ECL’s tanning business constituted, in the circumstances, a natural use of ECL’s land. The Court of Appeal, however, allowed CWC’s appeal from the decision of the judge, on the ground that ECL was strictly liable for the contamination of the water percolating under CWC’s land, on the authority of Ballard v Tomlinson (1885) 29 Ch D 115, and awarded damages against ECL in the sum assessed by the judge, viz £1,064,886 together with interest totalling £642,885, and costs. It is against that decision that ECL now appeals to your Lordships’ House, with leave of this House.