Court rules time is no healer

The High Court judgment which found that Corby district council had been “extensively negligent” in its reclamation of a former steel works highlights the potential for toxic tort litigation many years after the original event, say experts.

In Corby Group Litigation v Corby District Council, Mr Justice Akenhead found that the defendant council was responsible for the exposure of pregnant women to an “atmospheric soup of toxic materials”.

That exposure was found to have led to severe birth defects in 18 children. The council denied it had been negligent in the reclamation work between 1985 and 1999.

Despite the council relying heavily on expert evidence, the judge preferred the expert witnesses from the claimants, finding that the council had “bitten off more than it could chew and did not appreciate the enormity and seriousness of the work being undertaken”.

The judge did not address in detail issues of causation in individual cases, although held, in general terms, that the defects were linked to the reclamation work.

The council said it was disappointed in the ruling and intended to consider its position.

Richard Scorer, head of personal injury at Pannone LLP, Manchester, says that although the case did not establish any new legal principle and was unusual because of the high level of contamination at the site, the ruling could have far reaching consequences.

“The case highlights the potential for toxic tort litigation many years after the original events, particularly where the injuries remain latent for some years, as often happens in toxic injury cases, and will be closely scrutinised by the many local authorities who bear responsibility for decontamination of brownfield sites,” he says.

Scorer continues: “It will also be closely watched, for example, by environmental groups opposed to nuclear power. The decommissioning of Britain’s older nuclear power stations has the potential, if mismanaged, to give rise to long term liabilities which could fall on the public purse.”