Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (HL)

Facts

  • Cambridge Water Co operated a water borehole supplying drinking water.
  • Eastern Counties Leather plc ran a tannery near the borehole and used the chemical perchloroethene (PCE) in its operations.
  • Over time, PCE seeped into the ground and contaminated the borehole, affecting Cambridge Water Co's water supply.
  • The distance between the tannery and the borehole was considerable.
  • Cambridge Water Co claimed damages, invoking the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, for contamination of its water supply alleged to result from the escape of a dangerous substance due to non-natural use of the land by Eastern Counties Leather.

Issues

  1. Whether strict liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher applies to the escape and consequent damage caused by hazardous substances from a defendant’s land.
  2. Whether the damage suffered by Cambridge Water Co was reasonably foreseeable at the time the substance was brought onto the defendant’s land.
  3. Whether foreseeability of damage is a necessary component for liability under Rylands v Fletcher.

Decision

  • The House of Lords affirmed that while the Rylands v Fletcher rule imposes strict liability, it requires that the type of damage caused must be reasonably foreseeable.
  • It was held that the specific contamination to the borehole at a considerable distance was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the PCE was brought onto the land.
  • As a result, Cambridge Water Co's claim failed and damages were not awarded.
  • The decision significantly restricted the scope of Rylands v Fletcher by incorporating the concept of foreseeability from negligence law.

Legal Principles

  • Strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher requires the accumulation of a hazardous substance as a non-natural use of land and its subsequent escape.
  • Foreseeability of the specific type of damage is necessary for liability under Rylands v Fletcher, shifting the rule closer to negligence principles.
  • The concept of “non-natural use” speaks to conduct on land that is unusual, extraordinary, or poses increased risk to others.
  • Liability for personal injury is excluded from Rylands v Fletcher; the rule applies to property damage resulting from escape.
  • Later decisions, including Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1, reaffirm that the activity conducted must be extraordinary, and non-natural use is measured by the risk posed to others.
  • Distinction from nuisance: nuisance generally deals with ongoing interferences, while Rylands v Fletcher focuses on isolated escapes; both now require foreseeability of damage.

Conclusion

The House of Lords decision in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc established that foreseeability of harm is a prerequisite for strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher, thus restricting the rule’s application and drawing it closer to negligence, while confirming its relevance where hazardous substances escape due to non-natural use of land.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal