Litigation regarding Pollution of Cotburnvale Burn - The Binnend Oil Co. Ltd., 1880

type: Environment - water pollution

Source:
Glasgow Herald
Unique Code:
A01001
Source date:
17/09/1880
Related organisations:

Binend Oil Company v. Robert Kirk—it may be remembered that this appeal was taken by the Binend Oil Company and others against the judgment of the Sheriff of Fifeshire in action raised by Robert Kirk of Greenmount, Burntisland, to put stop to the pollution of burn running through his property by the discharge from the Oil Company's Works. Mr George Cunningham, C.E., Edinburgh, to whom the Court remitted on the 21st November last to examine the works, reported the other day that having, along with Professor Crum Brown, inspected the works on 29th November and 14th April last, he on both occasions found the stream greatly polluted. informed the parties that he could not report that their plan was at all likely to prove efficient, and that other means must be adopted. There could be no doubt that, situated as the works are, 200 feet above the level of the sea, and not far distant from it, the moat efficient remedy would to lay a cast iron pipe of sufficient capacity from the works out to low water mark, and to carry off the whole drainage by means of that pipe. If the necessary assents required for the laying of the pipe could be obtained, then the only other remedy was evaporation. On Tuesday counsel appeared for the appellants the bar of the First Division, and stated that the proposal to carry the refuse from the works into the sea had been so far frustrated by the nearest proprietor of land intervening, who had refused to allow a pipe to be laid through his property. They were in communication with adjoining proprietor for permission to take the pipe through his ground, and as they expected early reply they asked for delay. If they failed in obtaining permission the alternative suggested by the engineer—that of erecting purifying tanks—would require to be adopted. Their Lordships delayed consideration of the case for a week. Counsel for the pursuer and respondent—Mr Mackintosh. Agents—Gibson, Craig, Dalziel, Brodies, W.S. Counsel for the defenders and appellants —Mr Rutherford. Agents Drummond & Reid, W.S.

Fife Free Press, & Kirkcaldy Guardian, Saturday 12 June 1880

........


THE INTERDICT AGAINST THE BINNEND OIL COMPANY. Saturday morning, the report of Mr Carter, C.E., ordered by the Court a fortnight ago, as to the route suggested by the Binnend Oil Company, by which they proposed to convey the noxious substance of the manufacture of shale oil to the sea, was presented. Mr Carter says . —" The only route on which I can report favourably—keeping the whole question of probable |pollution of the sea shore in view—is that described in the letter by the agents of the company. That route may be described as following the public road south westwards from the Binnend Works to the toll-house, thence to Burntisland by Cromwell Road, passing the west end of the Links, and finally, by means of a sewer conduit cut through the rock, discharging into the sea at or about the same point as the present sewer outfall, a short distance west of the Lammerlaws." The reporter suggests certain arrangements of clay and iron pipes, and concludes—" I am of opinion that a pipe so laid, taken in conjunction with efficient drainage of the works themselves, and such other arrangements as might be necessary to prevent leakage of surface and other water from the ground occupied by the works into the natural stream, would effectual in abating the nuisance complained of."

Tuesday, July 6. The Court to-day re-considered this case, with the report of Mr Carter. Mr Rutherfurd, for the Binnend Oil Company, stated that on the previous day the Company's agents had received from the clerk of the Burntisland Local Authority a letter intimating that the Board had resolved to refuse permission for laying down a pipe from the Binnend Works to the sea, alongside the public sewage pipe. The Clerk of the Board explained that they had had a report on the Company's proposal by Mr Sang, civil engineer, Burntisland, who said that the polluting matter from the works would in all probability be carried to the bathing place, and that if that were so it would be followed with most serious consequences to the place. The Company were thus shut up to the alternative plan proposed by Mr Cunningham s report, which was to dispose of the waste products of the works by evaporation within the works themselves. That was now the only way which the respondents in the complaint had of obviating the nuisance of. The Lord President observed that there was another way, and that was to stop the works. Lord Shand asked if Mr Cunningham had considered whether all the products of such a work would be evaporated without causing a great nuisance to the neighbourhood. Mr Rutherfurd answered that the evaporation had been successful in the Bathgate and Uphall Oil Works. The Lord President pointed out that the respondents' operations had been challenged more than a year ago. Mr Rutherfurd admitted that that was so, but explained that the delay was caused in the first place, by the desire of the Company to bring the case here, and not to have it dealt with in the local courts; and, in the second place, by the delay of sending Cunningham's report. The Lord President said that, supposing the Court to have been a year ago in the same position that they were now in, with an admission that evaporation was the only passible means of obviating this nuisance, he was not sure that the proper course for the Court to take would not have been to stop the works until the respondents should satisfy the Court and the complainer that they could go on without causing a nuisance. Mr Ruthufurd said that, of course, the difficulty in cases of this kind was that this was a large manufacturing industry in which a very great number people were employed—from 100 to 150, he was informed—and an interdict granted in the case would mean throwing all these people out of employment. Lord Shand—What do you say to this, that in putting down works this kind people never seem to think that the works must become the cause of nuisance to the neighbourhood, and that provision must be made to prevent that! The Lord President—They never do. They would seem to receive a good deal too much indulgence from the courts. Mr Rutherfurd submitted that Mr Cunningham't report showed that they had the means of obviating the nuisance by evaporation, and he asked that they should given time to carry it out. They could get the necessary tanks prepared in two months. He must say he thought that the Local Authority of Burntisland had been too apprehensive that danger would be done to the bathing place laying a waste-pipe to the coast. Lord Deas—It does not look like it.
Mr Rutherford—Mr Cunningham had said in his report it could be done. Lord Shand—l know for fact that the refuse from such works is carried for many hundreds of yards along a beach. Mr Rutherford confessed that the respondents were very much surprised at getting this refusal. Lord Shand—lt has not surprised me in the least. Mr Pearson*, for the complainer, said it was quite evident that the Local Authority of Burntisland were afraid of the extremely offensive nature of this discharge, and that pointed very much to the immediate interest of this pursuer to have the nuisance stopped. He was informed that, in the course of Mr Cunningham's investigations, his attention was specially directed to this question of evaporation, and that he expressed his opinion that its effect would simply be to create another nuisance, although it would be through the air and not through the water. That was not stated in his report, because that question was not contained within the remit, or, indeed, within the action. The delay that had occurred in the action lay entirely with the respondents, and not with the complainer ; for, until the minute of November 21st last, they had all along denied the existence of the nuisance. They had all that time to consider and adopt measures for doing away with this nuisance. Then as to this method of evaporation, it was entirely problematical whether it would have the desired effect; and he submitted he was entitled to interdict on that footing. Lord Mure observed that, as he read Mr Cunningham's report, he thought both Mr Cunningham and Professor Crum Brown threw doubt on whether the method of evaporation had been successful or not. Their Lordships reserved judgment.

Wednesday, 7th July. In this case to-day, the Lord President stated that the Court was inclined to grant further indulgence to the Binnend Company, but it must be on conditions. The Court would like to know, in the first place, whether the appellants were prepared to find caution for damages and expenses. The Dean of Faculty, Q.C., for the Binnend Companv, asked that the case should be continued till next day, in order that he might consult his clients. The Court allowed the continuation craved.

Thursday, July 8,1880. At the calling of this case to-day, the Dean of Faculty, Q.C.. for the Binnend Oil Co., stated that they were perfectly willing to find the necessary caution, so as to permit the Works to remain open during further proceedings. The Lord President said that, in these circumstances the Court were prepared to grant some time to the Company to execute the evaporation works suggested by Cunningham in his report for getting rid of this nuisance ; but the time must be limited, and if the operations were not executed within that time, the works would be interdicted. In that view, they proposed to remit the case to the Lord Ordinary on the Bills, and instruct Mr Carter to report to him by a certain date what had been done; and the Lord Ordinary would have power, if he were satisfied that the work was not being properly executed, to grant interdict. How long would the work take? The Dean of Faculty said he had been told that it could be executed in two months but he asked that the Court should extend the time to ten weeks, as the operations might be stopped owing to weather. Mr Asher submitted that this additional delay was not necessary, as if the Company should show to the Lord Ordinary that the works had been hindered by any such cause, his Lordship could use his discretion as to the delay. Their Lordships ultimately allowed the Binnend Co. two months to execute the works, leaving it in the power of the Lord Ordinary to grant further delay, if he should think proper.

Dunfermline Saturday Press, Saturday 10 July 1881

........

THE BINNEND CASE. A special meeting of the Burntisland Town Council was held on Wednesday night, called by the Provost on a requisition, to reconsider the application of the Binnend Oil Company to lay a refuse pipe to the sea at the outlet of the public sewer. Provost Strachan presided. Bailie Fotheringham explained that the Company now proposed to filter the refuse sent out from the works, which would render the scheme in his view unobjectionable. The Clerk read a letter which he had received from Messrs Drummond Reid, the Company's solicitors, to the following effect: " It appears to us that Mr Sang reported under an erroneous impression as to what is contemplated. lie assumes that the impurity discharged will consist mainly of 'oily matter’ but this a mistake. No oily matter whatever will be allowed to escape, but will all be retained by catch pits, through which the water will flow before leaving the works. The judgment of the Town Council was necessarily influenced by this opinion of Mr Sang's, and having in view the explanation we have now given, we trust that you will bring the matter again before the Council, and that they will see their way to giving the consent have asked.
Various members of Council expressed opinions favourable to granting the application in its new shape, and Mr Graham Yool, chairman of the Binnend Oil Company, attended, and explained that the Company proposed to separate the oily matter by catch-pits and subsequent filtration, sending down water impregnated only by the salts peculiar to the manufacture, but absolutely deprived of oil. If admitted into the sewers, instead acting injuriously, it would have the effect of deodorising the sewage. Several suggestions were made, but eventually Treasurer Erskine's motion was adopted —to have in writing full details, and a guarantee against any claims for compensation, before coming to a decision.

Dunfermline Saturday Press, Saturday 17 July 1880

........

INTERDICTING THE BINNEND OIL COMPANY, Yesterday forenoon an application was made to Lord Rutherfurd-Clark for Mr Kerr, a proprietor in the neighbourhood of the Binnend Oil Company’s Works at Burntisland, for interdict against the continuation of these works on the ground that they were polluting the water of a stream passing through his property. There has been a good deal of litigation connection with these alleged nuisances, and at the rising of the Court in the summer session the alternative schemes were laid before the Court; but their Lordships ultimately allowed the Company two months to erect evaporating ponds. The two months have now elapsed, and the works have not been executed, the Company alleging that better plan was now about to be carried out of taking the polluting matter to Burntisland by pipes, and then discharging into the sea. The revised draft of the arrangement between the Company and the Town Council was to be submitted to the Council last evening. The Lord-Ordinary the bills (Rutherfurd-Clark) has continued the case till to-day to allow the certified copy of the resolution to be produced.
At a special meeting of the Burntisland Council yesterday Bailie Patterson moved the adjournment for the purpose of obtaining personal security from the Binnend Company against damages claimable from the Council. This motion was lost, whereupon the Bailie left the meeting, and the Clerk intimated that there was not a quorum present the business could not proceed. Treasurer Erskine protested, and announced that he would call a public meeting in order to expose the obstructive policy of the minority. The meeting was largely attended by the public.

Dundee Advertiser, Friday 17 September 1880

........

Petition to Inderdict - The Binnend Oil Co. Ltd.

During the summer sitting of the Court of Session, their Lordships of the First Division on various occasions heard counsel on the application of Mr Kerr, a proprietor of ground in the neighbourhood of Burntisland, Fifeshire, to interdict the Binnend Oil Company from polluting the waters of a stream which passes their works, and runs through his property. After a great deal of litigation, the company undertook to adept such measures as would obviate the nuisance complained of by Mr Kerr, and accordingly a remit was first made to Mr Cunningham CE, and latterly owing to Mr Cunningham's absence in London, to Mr Carter, CE to report upon the works necessary for this purpose. One of the schemes recommended by these gentlemen was the erection of evaporating tanks, but these the company were only willing to erect upon the failure of another scheme which they thought would more thoroughly remove the offensive matter than evaporation. This scheme was to convey the matter by pipes from the works along the public road to Burntisland, and there discharge it into the sea at the point where the sewage of the the town is got rid of. Negotiations were entered into between the company and the Local Authority of Burntisland in order to obtain the necessary permissions, but as this was said to have been refused, the First Division, during the expiring days of the last session granted the company two months in which to erect the evaporation tanks, and they remitted to Mr Carter to report upon the new works to the Lord Ordinary on the bills, who was empowered, if the work was not satisfactory, to grant interdict.

The period granted having now expired, Mr Pearson, who appeared for the Complainer (Mr Kerr), yesterday moved Lord Rutherford Clark, the judge presiding on the bills, to grant interdict in respect Mr Carter had now reported that the Binnend Coal Company had failed to carry out the necessary works. In his report Mr Carter said the respondents had informed him that the reason of this was that they had now got the consent of the Town Council of Burntisland to lay the proposed pipe through their lands to the sea, and also of the Road Trustees to lay the pipe along the public road from the works to the lands of the Town Council. He reported, however, that certain works which he believed to be necessary in the event of the pipe being laid to the sea had not been executed by the respondents, and that on two or three occasions since the rising of the Court, when he had visited the works, the stream had been considerably polluted.

Mr DRUMMOND of Drummond & Reid SSC who appeared for the company, stated that after the rising of the Court he had resumed negotiations with the Town Council, and that the latter body had resolved to agree to the laying of the pipes through the lands of the town to the sea, and that the company had fallen back on what was admittedly the getter of the two schemes for doing away with the pollution. They had at the same time taken measures by temporary evaporation to prevent new polluting matter reaching the stream. Mr Drummond further stated that Mr Wallace, Town Clerk of Burntisland, was the son-in-law of the complainer, and that therefore the necessary writings for giving effect to the agreement resolved upon by the Town Council had been going through the hands of the Council not in tone with the settlement of the question; but that latterly a draft agreement had been submitted by the company to Mr JPB Robertson, and the revised draft was to be considered by the Council that (Thursday) evening.

Lord RUTHERFORD CLARK said he was not inclined to do more than continue the case till next day to allow the company to get a certified copy of the resolution at which the Council might arrive, and although the production of the resolution of the Council agreeing to give the required power would not necessarily make him refuse interdict, the non-production of it would make him grant it.

Glasgow Herald, 17 September 1880

........

THE BINNEND POLLUTION CASE. ln the Bill Chamber the Court of Session on Thursday, Lord Rutherford Clark, acting under the remit to him made by their Lordships of the First Division on 8th July last, heard parties in motion for interdict made by the complainer in the case of Kirke v. the Binnend Oil Company. Mr Kirke, it may be remembered, complains that the Binnend Oil Company have by the discharge from their works, polluted a burn which runs past the works and through his lands, and have rendered its water unfit for the primary uses, Mr Pearson, for the complainer, asked his Lordship to grant interdict, on the ground that the respondents had failed to execute the works for which the court had allowed them time. The respondents, he said, explained their failure to do so they had now got the requisite consents to enable them to go on with the admittedly better alternative scheme laying a pipe to the sea. But, over and above the Burntisland Town Council, the North British Railway Company bad appeared in Court, and intimated their purpose of opposing the discharge of this refuse matter into the sea at or near the present sewer outlet; and there was no evidence of a completed agreement even with the Town Council. It was this same malady of indefinite negotiations from which the complainer had suffered in the summer season. Further, Mr Carter had now reported that, on the occasions since the rising the court on which he visited the place, the burn was still seriously polluted, and that the respondents had failed to execute certain works for the removal of the pollution, which, in his opinion was necessary even in the event of a pipe being laid down to the sea. In the circumstances, he thought the complainer was entitled to the interdict asked. Mr Drummond, S.S.C., for the respondents, explained that since the rising of the Court the Burntisland Town Council had agreed to permit the proposed waste-pipe (which the Company already had authority from the Road Trustees to lay along the public road from the works to the municipal boundary,) to be laid through their lands to the sea; and the secretary of the North British Railway Company had written to intimate the withdrawal of opposition on the part of the Company. Mr Wallace, the Town Clerk of Burntisland, was the son-in-law of the complainer, and the papers embedding the proposed agreement with the Town Council had been passing through the hands of counsel not in tone with the adjustment of this case. Ultimately, the draft had been submitted by the Company to Mr J. P, B. Robertson for revisal; and the matter now stood in this position, that the revised draft would be submitted to the Town Council that (Thursday) night. As to Mr Carter's report, he submitted that, in point of fact, the Company had taken measures of temporary evaporation, which had effectually prevented the sending of new polluting matter into the burn, and suggested that the matter already in the bed of the stream had been stirred up with the view of convincing the reporter that the water was still being polluted. He was informed that the Company had done all that, in point of fact, would be required in the event of the pipe being laid to the sea ; and he submitted on whole matter, that the question his Lordship had to consider was, whether in appealing to the further indulgence of the Court, the Company had been acting reasonably, or trespassing on the indulgence of the Court. He contended that the Company had been acting reasonably, and to secure the carrying out of what was admittedly the best and most effectual the two alternative schemes. His Lordship ultimately said that the decision which the Town Council might come that night would be a very important consideration in the question at issue, as, if he should find that there was obviously something quite definitely settled between the Town Council and the respondents, which should enable the respondents to 'go on at once with the laying down of this pipe, he might not grant the interdict asked. Otherwise, he should think be was bound to grant it He would, accordingly, continue the case till next day (Friday) at ten clock, to enable the respondents to have certified copy of the resolution the Town Council before him. In the Bill Chamber of the Court of Session yesterday, before Lord Rutherford Clark, Mr Pearson, advocate appeared on behalf of Mr Kirke, the complainer for the interdict against the Binnend Oil Company. He held out that the counsel employed by the Burntisland Town Council had reported recommending the Council not to agree to the conditions stipulated by the Binnend Company until they had got an engineer’s report on the operations for diminishing the flow of waste, and security against any expense to which the town might be subjected by further complaints. Although the meeting last night bad broken up in confusion, still it seemed that the resolution approving of the report was favourably entertained by the majority of the Council, and in these circumstances he asked his Lordship to grant interdict. —Lord Rutherford Clark said be thought the First Division, who remitted the case to him, contemplated granting interdict of the operations for diminishing the flow of waste were not completed by the 13th September to the satisfaction of an engineer; and thought his position was such that he was bound to grant the interdict they would have granted. His Lordship then pronounced the following interlocutor:- The Lord Ordinary, having heard parties, interdicts, prohibits, and discharges, in terms of the prayer of the petition in the Sheriff Court, and continues the case. Counsel for the Complainer—Mr Pearson. Agents—Gibson-Craig, Dalziel, & Brodies, W.S. Agents for the Respondents—Drummond & Reid, W.S.

Fifeshire Advertiser, Saturday 18 September 1880

........

BURNTISLAND AND THE BINNEND CASE. PUBLIC MEETING. On Wednesday night, the conduct of the Burntisland Town Council in connection with the interdict against the Oil Company was discussed at a crowded meeting of the inhabitants of Burntisland in the Music Hall. Provost Strachan, who had called the meeting in response to a requisition, declined to preside, and Lieutenant Mather was called to the chair, and briefly stated the business. Bailie Fotheringham, on the motion of Mr John Fraser, engineer, recounted the efforts of the Binnend Company to get rid of their refuse, and the negotiations between the Company and the Town Council. He blamed parties in the Council for "burking" the success of the application, and being instrumental in causing the Company to lose their case in the Court of Session. He urged the constituency, in view of the coming election, to remember the conduct of a section of the Council and choose men to represent them who would have the courage to show what side they were on. Ex-Bailie Dewar, amid considerable hubbub, called in question Bailie Fotheringham's conclusions, and said, though one of the requisitionists, he was of opinion that the meeting was a mistake, and that the Town Council had nothing whatever to do with the interdict. The Bailie’s remarks became inaudible through the noise that prevailed. Treasurer Erskine explained the nature of the guarantees and security which the Company had offered, and said he failed to see why there should be any pressure for such further security as has been the occasion of this crisis. He thought the demand was an impracticable one, and meant block the progress of these works. (Cheers.)
Ex-Bailie Dewar reasserted his opinion that the meeting was wholly a mistake. He wished an explanation of the connection of the Town Council with the interdict. The meeting, he said, was not, moreover, a meeting of ratepayers, but nothing else than a rabble. (Uproar and hisses.) The Chairman warned ex-Bailie Dewar that he would be put out if he thus obstructed the business. (Cheers.) The ex-Bailie expostulated with the Chairman, and reminded him that he was, perhaps, the oldest ratepayer present.
Mr Grant, quarry man, remarked upon the trivial character of the nuisance as it at present existed, and blamed the complainer for throwing many men out of employment.
Mr E. Coull, ship chandler, moved "That the meeting is of opinion that all public works, as they tend to the employment of labour and the circulation of money in the town and district, and thereby lead to the prosperity of the town, should be encouraged, especially by the Town Council, who are the representatives of the ratepayers."

Mr John Fraser, engineer, moved "That this meeting regrets that the Binnend Oil Company, in their endeavours to develop a new industry in the district, should not have received a more generous support from the Town Council in their application for way-leave to discharge their refuse water through the public conduit, as it would have proved the least offensive method to the community, and enabled the Company to carry on their works."

Mr Archibald Stocks moved "That this meeting, while regretting the absence of so many Councillors from the last meeting of Town Council called to consider and settle the conditions upon which the way-leave should be granted, strongly disapproves of the conduct of Bailie Paterson and Councillor M'intosh in leaving the meeting after it was duly constituted, not only on account of their so preventing a settlement of the question, but also on account of the want of respect shown towards their fellow-Councillors." Mr Stocks, in moving the resolution, criticised the conduct of the two Councillors, who, he thought, were much to be blamed. He called upon them, if present, to explain their behaviour. No one responding, Mr Stocks briefly reviewed what had taken place at the Council meeting, of which he was a witness.
Mr Jas. Wilson, grocer, proposed "That the clerk of this meeting should be instructed to transmit the foregoing resolutions to the Town Council, with the humble request that the Council in their future negotiations with the Binnend Company may see fit to keep in view the opinions of this meeting expressed in the resolutions." The Chairman called for a show of hands each resolution separately, and declared them carried unanimously. A vote of thanks to the chairman terminated the proceedings.

Dunfermline Saturday Press, Saturday 25 September 1880

........

COURT OF SESSION FIRST DIVISION.-SATURDAY, October 16, THE BINNEND OIL COMPANY CASE, An application was made to-day to their Lordships of the First Division for an order to make perpetual the interim interdict against the further working of the Binnend Shale Oil Works, near Burntisland, which was granted by Lord Rutherfurd Clark on the 17th September. For a long time past a litigation has been proceeding in the Inferior Court of Fifeshire and in the Supreme Court, on the complaint of Mr 'Robert Kirke, a riparian. proprietor on the Cot Burn, the waters of which, he alleged, were being polluted by refuse matter from the- oil works, and rendered unfit for primary purposes. On the 8th July last, shortly before the rising of the Court for the autumn holidays, their Lordships made a remit to Mr Carter, C.E., to report to the Lord Ordinary on the bills on or before 15th December whether certain evaporating works for the disposal of the sewage had been executed to his satisfaction, and in the event of the works not being satisfactorily completed the Lord Ordinary was authorised to grant interim interdict. On the 15th September Mr Carter reported to the Lord Ordinary on the bills (Lord Rutherfurd Clark) that the works had not been executed to his satisfaction, and on the 17th of the same month, after hearing parties, his Lordship granted interdict in terms of the prayer of the petition, and continued the cause on the question of expenses. This morning Mr PEARSON, for the complainer, moved the Court to make the interdict perpetual, and to find Mr Kirke entitled to expenses. Mr Rutherfurd for the oil company, said he would not oppose the motion so far as it referred to expenses ; but le would ask their Lordships to continue the cause. His reason for making this request was that when the report by Mr Carter had been submitted the works necessary to obviate the nuisance had not been been completed owing to the failure of certain negotiations with the Town Council of Burntisland to get way-leave through their property to the sea. On the 4th of the present month that leave had been obtained, and he hoped soon to be in a position to apply for the recall of interdict, and if the order were not made perpetual there would be a great saving of expense. The Lord President pointed out to Mr Pearson that he was perfectly safe in the meantime, and there could be no great harm in letting the cause stand over. The Court accordingly found Mr Kirke entitled to expenses but otherwise continued the cause.

Glasgow Herald, Monday 18 October 1880

........

The Binnend pollution litigation, which arises out of the pollution of a stream by the refuse from the Binnend Oil Works, came before their Lordships of the First Division of the Court of Session on Saturday. It may be remembered that in September the Lord Ordinary on the Bills (Rutherford Clark), in virtue of a remit made to him by the First Division, granted interim interdict, prohibiting the Binnend Oil Company from carrying on their works. Mr Pearson now moved that this interdict should be made perpetual, and also asked that Mr Kirke, of Greenmount, near Burntisland, respondent in the action, should be found entitled to expenses. Mr Rutherford did not oppose the motion for expenses, but stated that the company had now got permission from the Burntisland magistrates to carry the refuse from the works through their property to the sea. In these circumstances their Lordships found the respondent entitled to expenses, and quoad ultra continued the cause.—This case came again before the Court on Tuesday morning in the form of a petition and complaint by Robert Kirke, of Greenmount, against the Company. The complainer avers in his present petition that notwithstanding this interdict, and in breach of it, the respondents have carried on their works, and discharged into the Cotburnvale burn, which passes through the complainer's property, water polluted with the refuse from the works. The complainer therefore asks that the Court should inflict such fine as they see fit. The Court appointed intimation and service of the petition to be made to the respondents.

St. Andrews Gazette and Fifeshire News, Saturday 23 October 1880

........

The Binnend Oil Company Pollution Case. This case came up in the First Division of the Court of Session on Tuesday. In October last Robert Kirke, Esq. of Greenmount, Burntisland, presented a petition to the Court complaining that the Binnend Oil Company had failed to comply with an order pronounced by the Lord-Ordinary on the Bills interdicting them for carrying on their works or polluting the stream called the Cotburnvale which passes through Kirke’s property. The Binnend Oil Company lodged answers, in which they deny that polluting matter had been discharged from their works into the bum. Their Lordships allowed parties proof of their averments to be taken by Lord Shand, and the diet was fixed for to-day. On Tuesday, however, his Lordship, at the joint request of parties, discharged the order for proof, arrangement having been come to whereby the Binnend Company have undertaken to execute certain remedial works. Counsel for complainer Mr Trayner and Mr Pearson. Agents—Tods, Murray, and Jamieson, W.S. Counsel for respondenta—Mr Rutherford. Agents—Drummond & Reid, W.S.

Fife Free Press, & Kirkcaldy Guardian, Saturday 12 February 1881

........

Court of Session, Fist Division, Wednesday June 1, Alleged breach of interdict by the Binnend Oil Company.
This morning a petition was presented for Mr Robert Kirke, of Grreenmount, Burntisland, com plaining that the Binnend Oil Company has infringed the interdict formerly granted by the Court against the pollution of the Cotburnvale Burn, which runs through his property. Petitioner says that since the petition and complaint had been presented the works of the cormpany had been in active operation, and that they had discharged into the burn in question water polluted with refuse from the oil works, which had rendered the waters of the burn unfit for primary purposes. The complainer specifies dates on which such discharges were made, and he craves to be allowed a proof of the pollution in breach of the interdict on the occasions specified. This morning Mr PEARSON said that certain alterations hall been made at the works to obviate the nuisance complained of, but under reservation of the standing interdict, and the complainer had now been constrained to bring this petition. Mr Rutherfurd, for the company, said he had been in hopes that the whole matter had been settled by agreement; but as there were a large number of dates mentioned in the petition, be would ask leave to answer the statements, The Court ordered answers in eight days.

Glasgow Herald, Thursday 02 June 1881

........

Saturday (Before the First Division), KIRKE v. BINNEND OIL COMPANY.

The minute by Robert Kirke of Greenmount Burntisland, against the Binnend Oil Co., and Dundas Simpson and Archibals Simpson, oil manufacturers, with answers thereto, was before the court today. The minute sets forth that in October last Kirke presented a petition and complaint against the respondents for breach of an interdict granted during the previous month. Answers were ordered thereto, but the works of the respondents have been in active operation, and the respondents have continued to discharge into the Cotburnvale Burn from their works water mixed or polluted with the refuse of the manufacture of oil, acid, or other offensive substance, whereby the Burn is polluted and rendered unfit for primary purposes, obnoxious to the complainers and others, and injurious to his property. Complainer therefore craves a proof of pollution, with breach of interdict. Tha answers state that the works necessary to prevent pollution would have been completed by the date formerly fixed, 9th May, had it not been for an error in the levels of the pipes. Near the sea these were 16 inches higher than at the gates of the works. The pipes stood for some time the pressure thereby caused, but ultimately they burst, and the leakage flowed into the burn. The pipe has since been lifted and laid at a different level. The respondents regret that in consequence of this the required operations which were very laborious and expensive, have been delayed; But they state that the work is now progressing and will be completed within 8 days. They deny that since the completion of the relaying of the pipe any offensive matter has found its way from the works into the burn.
The court to-day ordered a proof of the averments on both sides.
Counsel for complainer – Mr Pearson. Agents – Tods, Murray & Jamieson, W.S.
Counsel for respondents – Mr Rutherfurd. Agents – Drummond & Reid, W.S.

Dundee Advertiser, Tuesday 14 June 1881

........

COURT OF SESSION—FIRST DIVISION. Friday, 4th December. The Binnend Oil Company. The petition by Mr Kirke in reference to alleged pollutions near the works of this Company came before their Lordships this morning. The case came before the Court some months ago on a complaint of breach of interdict and pollution of water supply, and on answers being lodged a proof was ordered of both parties’ averments. The diet was discharged, however, and to-day the petition was of consent dismissed, the defenders having erected some works to prevent further pollution and paid complainer's expenses.

Dundee Evening Telegraph, Saturday 05 November 1881

........