Legal Case Summary
Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Countries Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264
Applicability of remoteness of damage rules in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher cases
Facts
The Defendants were engaged in leather tanning at Sawston. During their work, as a result of the process of degreasing pelts, small quantities of a solvent known as Perchloroethene (PCE) was spilt on the floor of the building in which the Defendants carried out their activities. These solvents eventually seeped through the building floor and into the soil, which eventually meant that they contaminated the Claimant’s borehole at Sawston Mill near Cambridge, some 1.3 miles away. The borehole was used to extract and supply water to local residents and consequently this meant that the water available for extraction as contaminated and to such a degree that it could not be safely used by the Claimants. The Claimants brought a claim against the Defendants on the grounds of nuisance, negligence and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Issues
The issue in the case was whether the rules for remoteness of damage and foreseeability of the type of damage caused apply to cases involving the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and nuisance in the same way they do for negligence cases.
Decision / Outcome
It was held that the necessity to prove foreseeability of the type of damage suffered and to deal with remoteness of damage more generally applies equally to cases based on negligence, nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. It was held further that the damage in this case was too remote as it was not possible for the Defendants to reasonably foresee a spillage which would eventually lead to contamination of a water borehole so far away. The Defendants were therefore not liable for the damage.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264. The House of Lords’ ruling that foreseeability of damage is a prerequisite for liability in both private nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher remains good law.
Readers should be aware of one significant subsequent development: in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, the House of Lords confirmed that Rylands v Fletcher remains a distinct tort in English law (declining to absorb it into negligence as Australian courts had done), and further clarified and narrowed the meaning of “non-natural use” of land. The Transco decision built upon the foreseeability requirement affirmed in Cambridge Water and is an important companion authority. The article’s account of Cambridge Water itself is not affected by Transco, but students should read both cases together for a complete understanding of the modern scope of Rylands v Fletcher.
