From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1994] 2 AC 264. Water stored by the claimant utility company became contaminated by chemicals leaking from the defendant's leather plant. The claimants tried to recover the cost of handling the contaminated water from the defendants under the rule in rylands vfletcher. There was no case in Negligence, it having been conceded that the defendant's had taken all reasonable precautions to store the chemicals properly. The House of lords were prepared to allow that the storage of chemical solvents was a 'non-natural user of land' under the terms of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, but the effect of the leakage was too remote a consequence for the defendants to be held liable.