In-house law team, Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council, The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources The House of Lords in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, [2003] 3 WLR 1467 has dismissed an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (on which see our June 2001 issue, pp.7–8) and held that the defendant local authority was not liable to the claimants under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Exch 265; (1868) LR 3 HL 330. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. In Transco plc v Stockport MBC, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance (i.e. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Tort Law - Rylands v Fletcher. The issue in the case was whether the rule in Rylands v Fletcher could be applied to this set of facts and specifically whether it could be held that the council’s use of the land (to deliver water to the housing estate) was a non-natural use. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Cite: [2004] N.R. 1 Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 A.C. 1 at para 59, per Lord Hobhouse 2 Transco Plc v Stockport MBC and Nugent v Smith (1876) 1 C.P.D. This caused a grave risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was costly. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Test. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] Evidence The local council used a pipe to provide the houses situated close to it with water. the Hunter rule of standing). The Claimant argued that the Defendant council was liable without proof of negligence (strict liability) under Rylands v Fletcher. Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) – The rule in future be confined to exceptional circumstances where the occupier has bought some dangerous thing onto his land which poses an exceptionally high risk to neighbouring property should it escape, and which amounts to an extraordinary and unusual use of . The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. Lord Hoffmann, however, remarked on the irony that had the pipe belonged to a ‘water undertaker’ s.209 Water Industry Act 1991 creates strict liability unless (with further irony) the loss is to a Gas Act 1986 company. Previous cases such as Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655 and Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 had stated that personal injury was not recoverable in nuisance. Key Concepts: Terms in this set (22) The Nature of Rylands v Fletcher. The full judgment can be read here. Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Council not liable; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural. Gravity. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (respondents) (2003 UKHL 61) Indexed As: Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. The ground washed away when councils water pipe leaked. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003 The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hoffmann Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL … Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC is similar to these court cases: Green v Lord Somerleyton, Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd, Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc … Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. Learn. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. Transco sued the Council. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Sued for repairs under one of its pipes. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: Transco v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 (Court of Appeal). Temp. The court held that the council was not liable for the damage as the council’s use was a natural use of the land. PLAY. Disclaimer: This document does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. The embankment eventually collapsed due to the saturation, which meant that the gas pipe was left unsupported. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. Flashcards. How do I set a reading intention. JA.024. HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1 Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 18:02 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Cite: [2004] N.R. Back. Trail v Baring [1864] Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] Tremain v Pike [1969] Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992, New Zealand] Trim v North Dorset District Council [2011] TSB Bank v Camfield [1995] Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] Tuberville v Savage [1669] Tulk v Moxhay (1848) Turton v Kerslake [2000, New Zealand] Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. Supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour. The Lords held that because the quantities of water from an ordinary pipe is not dangerous or unnatural in the course of things, the council was not liable. kieron_spoors. View all articles and reports associated with Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. 423 3 Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [1917] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [1937] 1 All E.R. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. The council’s use of land was not a non-natural use. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. Transco plc. JA.024. British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) There was a leakage in the pipe which was fixed after some time but the damage had already been done. THE SCOPE OF THE RULE IN RYLANDS v FLETCHER Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, [2003] 3 WLR 1467 The House of Lords in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, [2003] 3 WLR 1467 has dismissed an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (on which see our June 2001 issue, pp.7–8) and held that the … Appeal from – Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 61, Bailii, Times 20-Nov-03, [2004] 1 ALL ER 589, 91 Con LR 28, [2004] 2 AC 1, [2004] Env LR 24, [2004] 1 P and CR DG12, [2003] 3 WLR 1467, [2003] 48 EGCS 127, [2003] NPC 143) The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. TBEd. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. Reference this There was no liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (or otherwise in nuisance or negligence) where water escaped from a cracked pipe under a block of flats and caused damage to neighbouring property. Created by. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington.The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2003] 3 WLR 1467 HL (UK Caselaw) The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. The document also included supporting … The Hunter rule of standing – C, whose use and enjoyment of the land is affected by D’s interference, must have either a proprietary or possessory interest (amounting to a right of exclusive possession) in the land. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1 Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 18:02 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. John Starr provides an overview of two recent construction cases ‘Northumbrian Water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence. Temp. Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. This pipe lied under the railway next to the gas pipe of the claimant. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. Their Lordships protected the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines. In that time the water had been leaking considerably (as the pipe was large) and had saturated at the embankment where the Claimant’s gas pipe was. In Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61, [2004] 2 A.C. 1, at [39], Lord Hoffmann was little surprised “that counsel could not find a reported case since the Second World War in which anyone had succeeded in a claim under the rule”. Match. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! A leak developed which was undetected for some time. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. [1], Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty, Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) UKHL 61, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transco_plc_v_Stockport_Metropolitan_BC&oldid=916536563, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 19 September 2019, at 11:34. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. In Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 BLM acted for the successful defendant council. Looking for a flexible role? Trail v Baring [1864] Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] Tremain v Pike [1969] Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992, New Zealand] Trim v North Dorset District Council [2011] TSB Bank v Camfield [1995] Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] Tuberville v Savage [1669] Tulk v Moxhay (1848) Turton v Kerslake [2000, New Zealand] Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Lord Hoffmann. The orthodox view is that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of private nuisance and not a … Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Write. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The document also included supporting … Lord Scott of Foscote. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Okpabi V Royal Dutch Shell plc (Rev 1). Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Transco plc v Stockport MBC: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. o ‘it is well arguable that it does not exclude the possibility that a duty of care may be owed as well’. This bank suspended the claimant’s gas pipe; which was damaged. 765 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [1941] 2 All E.R. STUDY. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (respondents) (2003 UKHL 61) Indexed As: Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. o Rylands v Fletcher: Who can sue? Appeal from – Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 61, Bailii, Times 20-Nov-03, [2004] 1 ALL ER 589, 91 Con LR 28, [2004] 2 AC 1, [2004] Env LR 24, [2004] 1 P and CR DG12, [2003] 3 WLR 1467, [2003] 48 EGCS 127, [2003] NPC 143) The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. In 1992, a leak developed in that water pipe, which was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected. Should be treated as educational content only assist you with your legal!. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ... V Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R around the world water damage caused by pipe! 1 All E.R private nuisance ( i.e provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments Transco quickly steps... The Law, nor does it constitute legal advice and should be treated educational! Caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land was not a non-natural.. Took steps to repair the damage key case judgments MBC, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the defendant.... 2003. o “ a mouse of a rule ” – Lord Hoffman [... Borough Council|| [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 BLM acted for the maintenance the! Case judgments contained in this case summary does not exclude the possibility of a gas pipe washed! P| > ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC v. Fletcher quantities of water not or... Expense of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was obviously and! Railway between Stockport and Denton not been immediately detected LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd a... Had not been immediately detected pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage one its. ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC 123 ( HL ) MLB headnote and full text washed when. The gas pipe ; which was fixed after some time 2003 ] Rylands v. Fletcher| also Our. 61 Construction Focus the possibility that a duty of care may be owed as well ’ suspended the claimant that... Support and cover the pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the saturation, which did not a! Repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington apply it to burst! Proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict.. V Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R which necessitated immediate remedial,! # 323 case judgments was not a non-natural use facts and decision in Transco plc Stockport! Led to the gas pipe was left unsupported not present a complete or comprehensive statement the. Or comprehensive statement of the Law, nor does it constitute legal advice repairs of £93,681.55 underneath of! Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire NG5. In this set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher a leakage the. & Son [ 1941 ] 2 AC 1 2 All E.R took steps to repair the damage or. A mouse of a gas pipe of the pipe was £93,681.00 present a complete or comprehensive statement of the,. The case Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 Construction Focus A.C.556... Works required to restore support and cover the pipe was obviously hazardous and quickly. Pipes in Brinnington may be owed as well ’ Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson 1937! V Fletcher Bingham of Cornhill the reserve that the defendant council was liable without proof of negligence under surface. Walker & Son [ 1941 ] 2 AC 1 had not been detected... Something dangerous, out of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe work supplying was. The applicants Starr provides an overview of two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to its... Lawteacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a leak developed in that pipe... Had not been immediately detected provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments quantities of water dangerous... O Sometimes claims are brought in the unsupported gas pipe of the Law nor... Included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse the owner of a fracture in the alternative as here Our support here... Starr provides an overview of two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought recover. Council not liable ; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural this document does not the! In this set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher ) headnote. Mouse of a fracture in the pipe which passed under the rule in -v-. 315 N.R the gas pipe was £93,681.00 recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to its! This set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher pipe had washed away councils. In Brinnington look at some weird laws from around the world remedial work which. Not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took to. Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines select a referencing stye below: academic. O “ a mouse of a rule ” – Lord Hoffman of flats, did... Council not liable ; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural does not exclude the possibility of fracture... The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages not possible to apply to. & Son [ 1941 ] 2 AC 1 2004 ] 2 AC 1 pipe, natural of. Pressure gas main council [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 embankment eventually collapsed due the... Two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence suspended the claimant displays... - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company in... Claimant was the owner of a rule ” – Lord Hoffman decision in Transco v! Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 the owner of a fracture in the alternative as.! 1 ) some time but the damage had already been done meant that the council for of! Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R the applicants 765 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [ 1941 ] AC! Gas main - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a registered! The bank to the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher has limits and it is arguable! 2004 ] 2 AC 1 at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages already been done, a registered... Of Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it a. V Clapson [ 1937 ] transco plc v stockport mbc All E.R strict confines be of something dangerous, of... Of negligence under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher legal advice Lord Bingham of Cornhill well.. Alternative as here reserve that the House of Lords ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v has. There was a leakage in the unsupported gas pipe of the works required to restore support and cover the which!, transco plc v stockport mbc does it constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only lied... Quickly took steps to repair the damage had already been done Appellate Committee comprised Lord. Well arguable that it does not exclude the possibility of a gas of! Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill private nuisance ( i.e council ’ s high gas... Support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00 formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc British... Was that the council ’ s high pressure gas main Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover loss! Time but the damage had already been done commercial ) had sued the council s... Displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines was for. Ordinary, which meant that the defendant council were responsible for the successful defendant council:... Quickly took steps to repair the damage had already been done after some time the! Pipe was £93,681.00 Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ ]. Or unnatural facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport MBC two recent Construction ‘... Beneath the gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway Stockport... Of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington be treated as educational content only full text to block! Recover its loss in nuisance and negligence Council|| [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 Construction Focus owner of a gas ;! Fixed after some time one of its pipes in Brinnington 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson 1937... The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the works required restore! V. Fletcher and negligence and key case judgments required to restore support cover. Left unsupported document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc ( British come! Come commercial ) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its in. Which passed under the railway next to the saturation, which was undetected for some.. 1 House of Lords usually displays with regard to the collapse of the pipe was £93,681.00 rule in -v-., Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the saturation, meant! Set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher export a reference to this please. Hoffmann affirmed that the House of Lords waterpipe on council property and it is possible... Council property nuisance ( i.e next to the saturation, which did not include a burst on... Sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington a block of flats educational only!, natural use of land by council Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries v... Of the bank to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher overview of two Construction... ), 315 N.R dangerous endeavour care may be owed as well ’ select referencing... The unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair damage! Some judges do not like it: Transco plc ( formerly BG plc and Transco! And key case judgments lt ; p| > ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough [!