This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:00

Judgement for the case Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather

Table Of Contents

  • Defendant had a factory whose chemicals seeped into the ground entering a well that Plaintiff had bought to supply water to town residents. Although there were no health risks, an EU directive forbade water containing more than trace amounts of the chemicals to be sold, so that Plaintiff had to relocate their well.

  • Plaintiff sued Defendant for nuisance.

  • HL held that the harm was unforeseeable and therefore not compensable. The harm would only have been compensable if it had been foreseeable.

Lord Goff

  • It would be unfair to say that in most tortious actions a fault requirement is required but not in nuisance.

  • No duty of reasonable care has to be breached for their to be an actionable nuisance.

  • However, the harm has to be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of unreasonable use (i.e. where the use is reasonable, it doesn’t matter that it causes foreseeable harm as there will be no actionable nuisance, and vice versa). 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather

Tort Law Notes
1,070 total pages
853 purchased

Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Tort Law Notes
1,070 total pages
853 purchased

Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...