This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P purchased a borehole outside Sawston, constructing pumping equipment and integrating the water from that borehole into their system in 1979. Tests undertaken both before the purchase, and in 1979, had demonstrated that the water was safe for public consumption. PCE was discovered in the borehole and P was forced to cease pumping water. Investigators concluded that the PCE had come from D, a leather tannery in Sawston. It was estimated around 3,200 US gallons of PCE were spilled each year. These spills collected in the chalk underlying Sawston until groundwater swept them into P's borehole. P sued D wanting £1 million in damages. P argued that D was liable in three ways; first, in negligence, second, in nuisance, and third, under the rule developed in Rylands v Fletcher. The court found that the harm was not reasonably foreseeable, and both actions under nuisance and negligence must fail. The court held that the use of industrial chemicals was not 'non-natural', given that it was on an industrial site, and that for a claim to succeed under Rylands the use must be 'some special use bringing increased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community'. Because D created jobs in Sawston and was thus providing a benefit for the community P's claim under Rylands was not valid. P appealed, and the court reversed. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.