[1994] 2 AC 264 (HL)
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc is a landmark House of Lords decision that reshaped the contours of private nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The case squarely addressed whether liability for escape of hazardous substances in nuisance or under Rylands is truly strict, or whether it is limited by a foreseeability-based remoteness principle akin to The Wagon Mound.
Whether liability in private nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher requires that the type of damage suffered by the claimant be reasonably foreseeable at the time of the defendant's activity, and, if so, whether ECL could be liable for groundwater contamination by PCE that was not reasonably foreseeable when the spills occurred.
Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type is a prerequisite to liability in private nuisance. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is properly understood as a sub-species of nuisance and is likewise subject to a foreseeability-based remoteness requirement. Liability under Rylands further requires a non-natural (extraordinary or special) use of land and an escape of a dangerous thing, but even where these are present, the defendant is not liable unless the type of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
The House of Lords held that ECL was not liable to CWC. Although the storage and use of large quantities of PCE could constitute a non-natural use of land for Rylands purposes, the type of damage suffered—groundwater contamination at the claimant's distant borehole—was not reasonably foreseeable at the relevant time. Consequently, CWC's claims in private nuisance and under Rylands failed on the ground of remoteness.
Cambridge Water recast private nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher by embedding a foreseeability-of-type-of-harm requirement into both. It narrowed the notion that these torts impose strict liability irrespective of remoteness, emphasized that Rylands is part of nuisance doctrine, and made clear that environmental contamination claims must satisfy modern remoteness principles. The case profoundly influences UK tort law and comparative common law by conditioning liability for hazardous escapes on foreseeability, while preserving the non-natural use and escape elements of Rylands. For students, it is a cornerstone for understanding how courts balance environmental protection, industrial activity, and fairness in allocating loss.