000			02016cab a2200421 4500
001			ABS50060
008			090401t1994 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u73924
041			_aeng
245			_aCambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc
260			_c1994
350			_a0
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v1994 2 WLR 53-84(17)
520			_aHL 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.
650			_aCAMBRIDGE WATER CO LTD V EASTERN COUNTIES LEATHER PLC (HL)
650			_aCHLORINATED SOLVENT
650			_aCIVIL LIABILITY
650			_aContamination _96231
650			_aDAMAGES
650			_aENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY
650			_aFORESEEABILITY
650			_aGROUNDWATER
650			_aLIABILITY
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
650			_aNUISANCE
650			_aPOLLUTION
650			_aRYLANDS V FLETCHER
650			_aSEEPAGE
650			_aTANNERY
650			_aWATER AQUIFER
650			_aWATER POLLUTION
650			_aWATER SUPPLY
690			_aEnvironment _96238
690			_aLAND
690			_aWATER-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c46656 _d46656