ABSTRACT
Leamington, like Tunbridge Wells, provides an example where the Court of Chancery's supervisory role, in actually spelling out what needed to be done to the sewage treatment regime to alleviate the legal problem, is clearly shown. It was the reluctance of Leamington to do that which the court required that precipitated the issuing of the sequestration orders. Leamington's sequestration had arisen from their failure to fulfil the requirements of Chancery's supervisory certificate, but the pollution nuisance problem with Thomas Heath still remained. The other river sewage pollution dispute which saw the actual issuance, delivery and enforcement of sequestration writs during the period, was at Tunbridge Wells. Tunbridge Wells and Leamington Spa, the consequences of the enforced sequestration, in the event, involved minimal discomfort and disorder for the towns. For both Leamington Spa and Tunbridge Wells, the crisis with Chancery arose from failure to respond to Chancery's attempts to settle their disputes by requiring specific tasks of them.
