51
|
P a g e
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] – development of rule
in Rylands v Fletcher: liability does not apply retrospectively in absence of
foreseeability of harm
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc
[1994]
is a case in
that established the principle that claims under
nd
must include a requirement that the damage be foreseeable; it also suggested that
Rylands
was a sub-set of nuisance rather than an independent tort, a debate eventually
laid to rest i
Th
were a company responsible for providing potable
water to the inhabitants of
nd the surrounding areas. In 1976, they
purchased
outsid
to deal with rising demand. In 1980,
was issued requiring nations of th
to establish
standards on the presence o
(PCE) in water, which the United
Kingdom did in 1982. It was found that the Sawston borehole was contaminated with
PCE that had originated in a tannery owned by Eastern Counties Leather. Prior to 1980,
there was no knowledge that PCE should be avoided or that it could cause harm, but the
Cambridge Water Company brought a case against Eastern Counties Leather anyway.
The case first went to th
wher
dismissed claims
under nuisance
and
Rylands v Fletcher
because the harm was not
foreseeable. His decision was reversed by the
who cited an "obscure decision" to justify doing s
The case then went to th
where a decision was read b
on 9 December 1993. Goff first countered
the Court of Appeal decision, restoring Kennedy's dismissal of the case, before moving
on to the deeper legal points. Based on the original decision in
Rylands
,
Goff argued that
it had always been intended for foreseeability of harm to be a factor, something not
previously put into law by the English judiciary. He then stated that
Rylands
was
arguably a sub-set of nuisance, not an independent tort, and as such the factors which
led him to including a test of foreseeability of harm in
Rylands
cases also imposed such a
test on all nuisance cases.
The decision in
Cambridge Water Co
made an immediate change to the law, for the first
time requiring foreseeability of harm to be considered in cases brought under
Rylands v
Fletcher
and the general tort of nuisance. It was also significant in implying that
Rylands
was not an independent tort, something later concluded in the
Transco
case. Goff's
judgment has been criticised on several points by academics, who highlight flaws in
wording which leave parts of the judgment ambiguous and a selective assessment of
Rylands
that ignores outside influences.
Corn v Weirs Glass (Hanley) Ltd [1960] – successful claim of tort of breach of
statutory duty requires loss to be a consequence of the breach Employers breach
of statutory duty. Not the cause of injury Guardrails etc for working platforms,
gangways, runs and stairs.
