The defendant sewerage undertaker received sewage, treated it in filter beds and discharged the treated liquid into the river. One night someone unlawfully discharged a solvent called iso-octanol into the sewer. It passed through the sewage works and entered the river. The question was whether the defendant had caused the consequent pollution.
Held: The defence to a pollution charge is wider than that for a breach of licence condition. The statutory defence to a breach of consent also applies to the allegation of causing pollution. The word ’cause’ in the subsection should be used in its ordinary sense and ‘it is not right as a matter of law to add further requirements.’ and ‘Yorkshire Water Services having set up a system for gathering effluent into their sewers and thence into their sewerage works there to be treated, with an arrangement deliberately intended to carry the results of that treatment into controlled waters, the special circumstances surrounding the entry of iso-octanol into their sewers and works does not preclude the conclusion that Yorkshire Water Services caused the resulting poisonous, noxious and polluting matter to enter the controlled waters, notwithstanding that the constitution of the effluent so entering was affected by the presence of iso-octanol.’
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Independent 01-Dec-1994, Times 21-Nov-1994, [1995] 1 AC 444, [1994] 3 WLR 1202, [1995] 1 All ER 225
Water Act 1989 107(1)(a) 108(7)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – National Rivers Authority v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd QBD 19-Nov-1993
‘Causing’ is a question of fact- does not import knowledge or negligence. A water authority could be liable for pollution caused to water even if it was caused by an unknown third party. . .
Restricted to its facts – Wychavon District Council v National Rivers Authority QBD 16-Sep-1992
The council maintained the sewage system in its district as agent for the statutory authority, the Severn Trent Water Authority. It operated, maintained and repaired the sewers. As sewage authority, it received raw sewage into its sewers. On the . .
Restricted to its facts – Price v Cromack 1975
The defendant maintained two lagoons on his land into which, pursuant to an agreement, the owners of adjoining land discharged effluent. The lagoons developed leaks which allowed the effluent to escape into the river.
Held: The escape had not . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – National Rivers Authority v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd QBD 19-Nov-1993
‘Causing’ is a question of fact- does not import knowledge or negligence. A water authority could be liable for pollution caused to water even if it was caused by an unknown third party. . .
Cited – Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Environment, Utilities
Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.84193