“House of Lords requires foreseeability for nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher liability”
Eastern Counties Leather used organochlorines in their tanning process, with regular spillages occurring over many years. These chemicals seeped through the ground and contaminated Cambridge Water Company's borehole over a mile away, making the water unfit for human consumption under new EU standards.
Whether liability in nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher requires foreseeability of the type of harm that actually occurred.
The House of Lords held that foreseeability of harm is a prerequisite for both nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher liability. Eastern Counties Leather was not liable as the contamination was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the spillages.
This landmark decision fundamentally altered the law of nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher by introducing foreseeability requirements, reducing the scope of strict liability and harmonizing tort law principles.
You're reading the free summary of Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.