Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd. vs Greater London Council
Reference : [1983] 2 AC 509
Jurisdiction : United Kingdom
Plaintiff : Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd. and others
Defendant : Greater London Council and others
Facts :
The plaintiff, Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the north bank of the river Thames in North Woolwich. In 1922 the Port of London Authority (the “PLA”) authorized Tate & Lyle Ind. Ltd. to construct a jetty known as the refined sugar jetty in the bed of the river adjacent to Tate & Lyle’s refinery. Between 1964 and 1966 the defendant, Greater London Council (the “GLC”) with the approval of the Port of London Authority (PLA), constructed two new ferry terminals for the Woolwich Ferry in the River Thames between North Woolwich and Woolwich. The new ferry terminals consisted of “J” shaped piers which protruded out of the north and south banks of the Thames. This design caused an unforeseen and unnecessary obstruction to the flow of the water. This, combined with the configuration of the Thames in the area of Woolwich, reduced the speed of the river flow between the north bank of the river and the main shipping channel up-stream of the terminals; that reduction of speed in turn caused sediment to be deposited and siltation to take place which materially reduced the depth of water between the north bank and the main shipping channel.
As part of a development project, Tate & Lyle wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels (for carrying raw sugar) which was completed in 1966.
The main issue raised by the plaintiffs was that siltation caused by the defendant’s new ferry terminals resulted in additional dredging cost for large vessels as they could not moor due to the buildup of siltation. This continued until 1974. Tate & Lyle sued both the GLC and PLA for negligence, private nuisance, and public nuisance. They sought to recover the £540,000 spent on additional dredging from the GLC and PLA, arguing that the defendants’ actions were negligent and responsible for the disruption to Tate & Lyle’s business operations.
Issues :
1. Were the GLC and the PLA liable for causing harm to Tate & Lyle’s operations by designing the terminals in a way that obstructed water flow?
2. Was the siltation and the resulting dredging cost a foreseeable consequence of the GLC’s ferry terminal design?
Arguments :
Tate & Lyle argued that the GLC’s construction of the ferry terminals foreseeably caused siltation, interfering with navigation and causing nuisance. Citing Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), they claimed the GLC owed a duty of care, and under Anns v Merton Borough Council (1978), as a public authority, the GLC was responsible for preventing harm caused by their authorized works.
The GLC and PLA contended they owed no duty of care for incidental siltation from lawfully authorized construction. They argued no private rights of the plaintiff were breached, as riparian rights don’t guarantee water depth.
Decisions :
Trial Court and Court of Appeal :
The plaintiff’s claims in private nuisance, negligence, and public nuisance were dismissed. The court found no actionable interference with Tate & Lyle’s private rights and insufficient basis for liability in public nuisance.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the private nuisance and negligence claims but allowed the public nuisance claim, holding both the Greater London Council (GLC) and the Port of London Authority (PLA) liable.
House of Lords :
The House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of these claims. Lord Templeman emphasized that Tate & Lyle had no primary right to the depth of the river near their jetties. Riparian rights did not extend to such a claim, and without an interference with private rights, there was no basis for liability in negligence or private nuisance.
The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision on liability for public nuisance. The GLC was held liable for obstructing the public right to navigate the Thames at its natural depth This obstruction caused specific damage to Tate & Lyle, who had to bare dredging costs to fix the navigability. Damages of £405,000 (three-quarters of the dredging costs) were awarded.
The PLA, however, was not found liable, as there was no evidence that it foresaw or could have anticipated the significant siltation caused by the GLC’s terminals.
Author :
1. Raiyan Talukder
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
