ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY Ltd AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS & Ors

(FIRST) THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS; (SECOND) BRENNTAG INORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED; (THIRD) INTERLINK M74 JV; (FOURTH) GALLIFORD TRY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED; (FIFTH) BALFOUR BEATTY CIVIL ENGINEERING LIMITED; (SIXTH) MORGAN SINDALL (INFRASTRUCTURE) PLC and (SEVENTH) SIR ROBERT MCALPINE LIMITED

[5] The first pursuer avers that the M74 land was formerly used by the second defender for the filling and blending of bulk liquid chemicals and the distribution and storage of chemicals including chlorinated hydrocarbons and other manufactured chemicals, and in particular tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene; that 1, 2 dichloroethene and vinyl chloride are degradation products of both tetrachloroethane and trichloroethene; and that the storage of such chemicals is not a natural use of land. It avers (condescendence 4):

“Their deposit in the past on or within land created a material risk that if not effectively removed, or stored and confined the chemicals would, on being disturbed, escape into the groundwater and contaminate neighbouring property such as the Site as in fact occurred. The second defenders knew or ought to have known that the unregulated escape of said chemicals would cause a risk to human health and a risk to the use of any land on which said chemicals came to be.”

“Cond. 7.… The groundwater flow of contaminants is northwards from the M74 land on to the Site. The contaminants have flowed and are continuing to flow from the M74 land on to the Site…

Condescendence 12 sets out averments of nuisance and fault directed against the third defenders. Condescendence 13 to condescendence 15 state: