HL 9 December 1993. The defendants (E) were leather manufacturers who used a chlorinated solvent in their processes. E`s tannery was situated 1.3 miles from the plaintiff`s (C) borehole from which water was taken for domestic use. The water in the borehole became unfit for use due to solvent seeping into the ground below E`s premises from where it was conveyed to the borehole. C brought an action for damages on the grounds of negligence, nuisance and the rule in "Rylands v Fletcher". The action in negligence and nuisance was dimissed as E could not have foreseen that such damage would occur and in the third grounds because the solvent constituted a natural use of their land. C appealed on the grounds that a parallel rule to "Rylands v Fletcher" held that nuisance was an interference with a natural right incidental to ownership. HL held this to be incorrect in upholding E`s appeal on the grounds that pollution was not forseeable.