The Court of Appeal is hearing a dispute over who should pay for land pollution at a tannery in Sawston, south of Cambridge.
The issue arose following complaints by Cambridge Water Company that elevated concentrations of perchloroethene and trichloroethene, chemicals used in the treatment of animals skins, had been found in a borehole near the tannery (see [2] EGCS 142 and [1993] EGCS 211).
In March this year, the High Court held that Eastern Counties Leather plc (ECL) was entitled to indemnity from Eastern Counties Leather Group Ltd (ECLG) in respect of the pollution.
However, John Martin QC, counsel for ECLG, claimed that ECLG was entitled to be indemnified by ECL under the terms of a 1994 pollution indemnity agreement between the two companies. The agreement was allegedly one of a series of documents that passed control of the tannery from ECLG to ECL.
Mr Martin argued that, although the purpose of the 1994 agreement was to apportion, between the two companies, the potential liability to pay for pollution clearance in respect of groundwater beneath the site, the indemnity was expressly conditional upon the performance by ECL of its own obligations.
He claimed that the High Court decision had deprived ECLG of that protection.
The hearing continues.
Eastern Counties Leather plc v Eastern Counties Leather Group Ltd Court of Appeal (Simon Brown, Buxton and Carnworth LJJ) 29 October 2002.
John Martin QC and Nicholas Leviseur (instructed by Lester Aldridge, of Bournemouth) appeared for the appellant; Sonia Proudman QC and Andrew Francis (instructed by Taylor Vinters, of Cambridge) appeared for the respondent.
PLS News 30/10/02
