Rivercove Trustee Ltd v Van Winkelen (t/a Euro Rubber Lines)

In civil proceedings there is one standard of proof: whether the fact in issue is more probably true than not. The seriousness of an allegation does not create a heightened standard, although it may affect the evidence required to satisfy the ordinary balance of probabilities.

Under a contract requiring machinery removers to leave premises safe and tidy, the removers are responsible for oil discharged or spilled during their work. That obligation does not extend to historic contamination for which the contract imposes no responsibility. A claimant must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s work caused the contamination and must prove the claimed loss with reliable evidence.

Rivercove owned former industrial premises at Brantham in Essex. It claimed the cost of cleaning substantial oil contamination, alleging that the contamination was caused by workmen engaged by Euro Rubber Lines to dismantle and remove heavy machinery under a July 2007 sale contract.

Euro Rubber Lines contended that the contamination was historic, arising from longstanding oil leakage from the manufacturing process, groundwater ingress and the failure of pumps, and that its workmen had caused no material spill. It also challenged the reliability and attribution of the claimed clean-up costs, downtime and overheads.

The central issues were whether the defendant’s work caused the relevant contamination, whether the contract imposed responsibility for it, and whether the claimed loss was proved.

1. Standard of proof. The burden was on Rivercove. The court rejected the submission that allegations of deliberate oil discharge required a heightened civil standard because of their seriousness. Applying In re B [2009] 1 AC 11, the applicable standard was whether the alleged fact was more probably true than not.

2. Contractual scope. The parties agreed that the removal provisions made Euro Rubber Lines responsible for oil discharged or spilled during removal of the equipment, but imposed no obligation to remedy historic contamination. The issue therefore turned on causation.

3. Causation. The contamination in the pits and ducts was attributable to historic oil leakage, continuing groundwater ingress and the shutdown of the pit pumps. The minor pools and residues associated with the removal work did not establish that the defendant had drained or spilled oil into the pits or ducts. The claim for breach of contract therefore failed.

4. Quantum. Although liability was absent, the court considered quantum. Retrospective purchase orders, invoices and quotations had been tailored to attribute as much liability as possible to the defendant and were unreliable evidence of the true recoverable cost. The downtime claim was also unsupported, while only certain items of hired plant were accepted as clean-up expenditure.

5. Indemnity and disposition. Rivercove failed to prove that it had undertaken liability for costs incurred by related companies. The claim was dismissed.

First instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.