DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW

Academic Session: 2016-17

ECONOMICS PROJECT

TAX HAVENS AND ITS EFFECT ON GLOBAL

ECONOMY

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. MITALI TIWARI NITIN GUPTA

FACULTY OF ARTS ROLLS NO: 167

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA SECTION ‘B’

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY B.A. LLB (Hons.), SEMESTER II

SIGNATURE OF PROFESSOR SIGNATURE OF STUDENT

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge my depth to all those

who have helped me to put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something
concrete. I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr. Mitali
Tiwari, who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic "TAX
HAVENS AND ITS EFFECTS ON GLOBAL ECONOMY”, which also helped me in
doing a lot of Research. I am really thankful to them any attempt at any level can't be
satisfactorily completed without the support and guidance of my parents and friends. I would
like to thank my parents who helped me a lot in gathering different information, collecting
data and guiding me from time to time in making this project, despite of their busy schedules,
they gave me different ideas in making this project unique.

2
Contents
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION- JURISPRUDENTIAL CONTEXT AND SCOPE .................................... 5
FACTS AND HISTORY ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
SCRUTINIZING THE JUDGMENT- END OR EXTENSION OF THE RYLANDS V.
FLETCHER REGIME? ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A. The Foreseeability Test- Diluting liability for water pollution?Error! Bookmark
not defined.
B. Non- Natural use of land & desirability of legislation- Merits of judgement ....Error!
Bookmark not defined.
C. Subsequent Judgements and Legal Action ................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
CONCLUSION........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3
ABSTRACT

Through this case comment, the author seeks to bring out the essentiality of the judicial
pronouncement in the 1993 case of Cambridge Water Company v. Eastern Counties Leather
contextualizing the jurisprudential application of Strict Liability surrounding the landmark
Rylands v. Fletcher judgement in the British landscape. The author will direct focus towards
the judicial rationale creating a theoretical foundation for subsequent discursive analysis and
seek to clarify the essence of a ‘foreseeability requirement’ as an addition or extension to the
Strict Liability doctrine and the development of a precedential legal framework to govern acts
of ‘historic pollution’. Ultimately, the author attempts to engage in a consequential analysis
while clarifying the possible implications of the judgment in a setting of increasing
environmental and public health consciousness. Utilizing such analysis, the paper throws
light upon a few inevitable inadequacies of the decision.

4
 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University- LAW OF TORT

INTRODUCTION- JURISPRUDENTIAL CONTEXT AND SCOPE

In Rylands v. Fletcher1, Lord Blackburn held,

“We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on
his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must
keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all damage
which is the natural consequence of its escape”.

In Ballard v. Tomlinson2, it was held that,

A person who by his actions, whether deliberate or accidental, caused the contamination
of underground supplies of water, which another landowner was entitled to abstract in an
uncontaminated condition, was strictly liable in the tort of nuisance.

It is in the context of these judgements that the Cambridge Water Company case came afloat and
was argued. The primal contention was concerned around the following legal issues:

1. Whether ‘Foreseeability’ of damage is a pre-requisite for action under Nuisance, and if

the same is in conformity with the ‘rule of law’ as laid down by Lord Blackburn?
2. What is the tortious liability for historical pollution?
3. What factors determine non-natural use of land?
These issues shall be examined by the author in the course of the project.

1
1868 UKHL 1
2
1885 29 Ch D 115
5|Page