## Facts

- Baxenden Chemical Co, a chemical manufacturer, allowed a toxic substance to escape from its premises.
- The escaped chemicals contaminated farmland owned by Hobbs (Farms) Ltd, adjacent to the defendant’s site.
- Hobbs (Farms) Ltd sought compensation for: loss of crops, diminished land value, and costs of soil remediation.
- The dispute addressed whether the defendant owed a duty of care, if the harm was foreseeable, and which losses were recoverable under negligence and nuisance.

## Issues

1. Whether a duty of care was owed by Baxenden Chemical Co to Hobbs (Farms) Ltd regarding the risk of chemical contamination.
2. Whether the harm suffered by the claimants was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s operations.
3. To what extent the losses claimed—loss of crops, soil remediation costs, and diminution in land value—were recoverable.
4. Whether liability for the contamination arose under the torts of negligence, nuisance, or both.

## Decision

- The court held that the risk of chemical escape and resultant environmental damage was foreseeable given the hazardous nature of the defendant’s operations and proximity to agricultural land.
- A duty of care was owed and breached by Baxenden Chemical Co.
- The escape constituted both negligence (breach of duty of care) and nuisance (unreasonable interference with the claimant’s land use).
- The court ruled that the loss of crops and remediation costs were recoverable as direct, foreseeable consequences of the contamination.
- The claim for diminution in land value was not recoverable, deemed too remote and not directly caused by the contamination.

## Legal Principles

- Foreseeability of harm is central to establishing liability in cases of environmental contamination.
- In tort law, negligence requires a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and harm that is a foreseeable result.
- Nuisance involves unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land.
- Liability for contamination can arise via both negligence (focus on conduct) and nuisance (focus on interference), though they have distinct legal requirements.
- Recoverable losses must be direct and foreseeable; remote damages such as diminution in land value may be excluded.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal ruled that a chemical manufacturer may be liable in both negligence and nuisance for foreseeable contamination of neighboring land, with recovery limited to direct, foreseeable losses such as crop loss and remediation costs, excluding remote losses like diminished land value.


Hobbs (Farms) Ltd v Baxenden Chemical Co [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep 54