Facts
Solvent spilled at a tannery seeped into the ground and polluted a borehole more than a mile away. Nobody could have foreseen that harm at the time.
Issue
Must the type of harm be foreseeable under Rylands v Fletcher?
Held
No liability.
Principle
Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type is needed under Rylands v Fletcher, as in .
Why it matters
Treats Rylands as a branch of nuisance.
Cited in these chapters
See also
- Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 (17 July 1868) · United Kingdom · 1868
Cite this page
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (Lanbuk) <https://www.lanbuk.com/llb/torts/cases/cambridge-water-v-eastern-counties-leather> accessed 31 October 2026
The accessed date is today's date. Check your course or publisher's style guide.
This summary is a Lanbuk study aid based on the generally known facts and reports of the case. It is not legal advice.