What are the facts?
Eastern Counties Leather (ECL) operated a leather tanning business on land located upstream from a groundwater source from which Cambridge Water Company (CWC) abstracted water for public supply. In the course of its tanning operations, ECL used and stored perchloroethylene (also known as tetrachloroethylene or PCE), a volatile chlorinated solvent commonly employed in degreasing. Over many years, small quantities of PCE were accidentally spilled or leaked onto the floor and soil at ECL's premises. The solvent percolated through the subsoil and migrated through the underlying aquifer. Eventually, CWC detected PCE contamination in its borehole water at concentrations that led to the closure of the borehole and the need to seek alternative supplies. At the time ECL used PCE and the spills occurred, industry and regulatory understanding of the risk that minor, routine handling losses could lead to long-range groundwater contamination at levels affecting potable water was limited; the specific risk of this type and extent of contamination was not generally appreciated. CWC sued ECL, alleging liability in private nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for the escape of a hazardous substance from ECL's land that interfered with CWC's use of its own property (the borehole).
What is the legal issue?
Whether liability in private nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher requires that the type of damage suffered by the claimant be reasonably foreseeable at the time of the defendant's activity, and, if so, whether ECL could be liable for groundwater contamination by PCE that was not reasonably foreseeable when the spills occurred.
What rule applies?
Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type is a prerequisite to liability in private nuisance. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is properly understood as a sub-species of nuisance and is likewise subject to a foreseeability-based remoteness requirement. Liability under Rylands further requires a non-natural (extraordinary or special) use of land and an escape of a dangerous thing, but even where these are present, the defendant is not liable unless the type of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
What did the court hold?
The House of Lords held that ECL was not liable to CWC. Although the storage and use of large quantities of PCE could constitute a non-natural use of land for Rylands purposes, the type of damage suffered—groundwater contamination at the claimant's distant borehole—was not reasonably foreseeable at the relevant time. Consequently, CWC's claims in private nuisance and under Rylands failed on the ground of remoteness.
What is the reasoning?
Lord Goff, giving the leading speech, reasoned that private nuisance has never been purely strict in the sense of imposing liability for all harm regardless of foreseeability. Instead, it incorporates a remoteness limitation analogous to that articulated in The Wagon Mound (No 1): a defendant is liable only for the kind of damage that was reasonably foreseeable. The court surveyed earlier case law and academic commentary, concluding that it is both doctrinally coherent and normatively desirable to align nuisance with the general approach to remoteness in tort, thereby avoiding anomalous strict liability for unforeseeable harm. The court then addressed Rylands v Fletcher, characterizing it as a sub-species of nuisance concerned with the escape of dangerous things associated with a non-natural use of land. Given its conceptual kinship with nuisance, Rylands should also be constrained by foreseeability of the relevant type of damage. This harmonization serves policy aims by ensuring that liability for extraordinary risks attaches where the risk is one against which a reasonable person would take precautions; conversely, unforeseeable risks should not ground liability merely because a hazardous substance was involved. Applying these principles, the court accepted that large-scale storage and use of PCE by an industrial tanner could be considered a non-natural use and that PCE is a dangerous substance. However, it found that at the time of the spills the scientific and regulatory community did not appreciate that small, routine losses of PCE could migrate through the aquifer and produce contamination at the claimant's borehole sufficient to compromise potable water supply. Because that type of harm was not reasonably foreseeable when ECL conducted its operations, remoteness barred recovery in both nuisance and Rylands. The court's approach thereby prevented retroactive imposition of strict liability for a newly recognized environmental risk, without foreclosing liability in future cases where such contamination risks are reasonably foreseeable.
Why is this case significant?
Cambridge Water recast private nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher by embedding a foreseeability-of-type-of-harm requirement into both. It narrowed the notion that these torts impose strict liability irrespective of remoteness, emphasized that Rylands is part of nuisance doctrine, and made clear that environmental contamination claims must satisfy modern remoteness principles. The case profoundly influences UK tort law and comparative common law by conditioning liability for hazardous escapes on foreseeability, while preserving the non-natural use and escape elements of Rylands. For students, it is a cornerstone for understanding how courts balance environmental protection, industrial activity, and fairness in allocating loss.
Did Cambridge Water abolish Rylands v Fletcher?
No. The House of Lords did not abolish Rylands; it reinterpreted and confined it as a sub-species of nuisance subject to a foreseeability requirement. Claims under Rylands still require a non-natural use of land and an escape of a dangerous thing, but liability also depends on whether the type of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
How does Cambridge Water change the test for private nuisance?
It confirms that private nuisance is not purely strict and that remoteness is governed by foreseeability of the relevant type of damage, mirroring The Wagon Mound approach. Even where an interference is substantial and continuous, a defendant is not liable for types of harm that a reasonable person could not have foreseen at the time of the conduct.
What counts as a 'non-natural use' after Cambridge Water?
Non-natural use refers to a special, unusual, or extraordinary use of land that materially increases risk, judged in light of time, place, and circumstances. Industrial storage or use of hazardous chemicals can qualify. But even if the use is non-natural, liability under Rylands still requires foreseeability of the type of harm and an escape.
Why was ECL not liable despite using a dangerous solvent?
Although PCE is hazardous and its industrial use could be non-natural, the specific risk that minor handling losses would migrate through groundwater and contaminate a distant potable water source at harmful levels was not reasonably foreseeable when the spills occurred. The lack of foreseeability defeated remoteness in both nuisance and Rylands.
If the same contamination happened today, would the result differ?
Possibly. Foreseeability is assessed at the time of the defendant's conduct in light of then-current knowledge. Today, given enhanced scientific understanding and regulatory guidance on solvent migration and groundwater protection, similar contamination might well be considered foreseeable, potentially leading to liability if other elements are met.
How does Cambridge Water relate to negligence claims?
Cambridge Water aligns nuisance and Rylands with negligence on remoteness by requiring foreseeability of the type of harm. However, nuisance and Rylands remain distinct causes of action with different elements (e.g., non-natural use and escape for Rylands), so a claimant might fail in negligence for lack of breach but still succeed in nuisance or Rylands if those distinct elements and foreseeability are proven.