This case concerned the defendant council who were responsible for the maintenance of pipe work which supplied water to a block of 66 flats. This is to encourage people to make use of relatively cheap land insurance rather than seek to place their loss on others by litigation. Transco plc. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: HL 19 Nov 2003 Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture. Facts. Transco v Stockport. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2004) Transco plc brought an action against the council to recover the cost of remedial action to its gas main. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. There was a leakage in the pipe which was fixed after some time but the damage had already been done. 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 . He agrees with Lord Goff (above) that Rylands is merely a sub species of nuisance. Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] o The defendant’s water pipe burst, which caused the weakening of a bank. “An occupier of land who can show that another occupier of land has brought or kept on his land an exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing in extraordinary or unusual circumstances is … entitled to recover compensation from that occupier for any damage caused to his property interest by the escape of that thing, subject to defences of act of God or of a stranger, without the need to prove negligence.”. Case in English tort law that established the principle that claims under nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher must include a requirement that the damage be foreseeable; it also suggested that Rylands was a sub-set of nuisance rather than an independent tort, a debate eventually laid to rest in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. ⇒ The person who brings onto his land the mischievous thing The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. 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. Transco v Stockport. Transco plc, the appellant before the House, is the successor of North West Gas Board. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.. Facts. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Transco v Stockport MBC [2004]: Even if it is completely improbable the thing will escape, you will be liable for the harm it could potentially do if it did escape Who is the defendant? Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This was finally settled Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Council [ 13] where Lord Bingham made it clear the rule in Rylands v Fletcher will only apply “where the defendant’s use is shown to be extraordinary and unusual [ 14] ” and therefore the argument of “general benefit of the community” is not sufficient. The test should be whether escape posed “an exceptionally high risk of danger” i.e. Transco v Stockport MBC Held: In this case Lord Bingham said the defendant must use the land in a way which is “extraordinary and unusual in that time and place” to qualify as an unnatural use of the land Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by This pipe lied under the railway next to the gas pipe of the claimant. Fletcher - A water pipe owned by the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council which supplied water to a block of flats leaked undetected for a prolonged period of time - The leak caused an em­bankment to collapse leaving a high pres­sure gas main belonging to Transco to be exposed and unsupported - There was an immediate and serious risk that the gas main might crack, with potentially devas­tating consequences - Transco … In this case this was the sort of risk that P ought to have reasonably insured against and therefore it does not come within the Rylands rule. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. Notes External links. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] Evidence The local council used a pipe to provide the houses situated close to it with water. Unlike the Australian High Court, whose abolition of the doctrine in Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty (1994) 179 CLR 520 was given severe doubt, their Lordships stated their purpose, to retain the rule, while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose; and to restate it so as to achieve as much certainty and clarity as is attainable, recognising that new factual situations are bound to arise posing difficult questions on the boundary of the rule, wherever that is drawn. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Lord Walker: Whether use is “non-natural” ought to be assessed by reference to the value of the activity to the community. Only Property Damage or SPD available - it's a "sub-species of private nuisance" Rylands v Fletcher. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. 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. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. Transco v. Stockport is also an influential English case dealing with the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher, a judgment which once again questioned the eligibility of the rule as a tort of strict liability. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Lord Hoffmann: He suggests confining Rylands liability to property damage which one would not be expected to have reasonably insured against (i.e. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Transco v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 (Court of Appeal). Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather. an increased risk). The gas main was laid pursuant to a Deed of Grant dated 3 November 1966. Is it something D did or ought to have recognised as something quite out of the ordinary at the time it was done. The The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. The embankment collapsed when the council’s water pipe leaked. The document also included supporting … Bringing chemicals onto the land is a 'classic non-natural use of the land' Read v Lyons. 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] Their Lordships protected the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines. This bank suspended the claimant’s gas pipe; which was damaged. Only a non-ordinary user can attract liability under Rylands. In Transco v Stockport the claimant's gas main was left unsupported and exposed to a serious risk of fracture when water leaking from a broken pipe installed by the defendant to serve a block of flats washed away the soil below it. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. o The defendant was not liable. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. Reservoir, water escaped into active mine causing dmg , strict liability re the Escape. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. students are currently browsing our notes. He also says the “reasonable user” principle is unhelpful. The council’s use of land was not a non-natural use. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Lord Hoffmann. The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. Lord Scott of Foscote. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. HL denied the claim since the water is not dangerous, and only dangerous, out of the ordinary things come within the Rylands rule. Lord Bingham: He decided “to retain the [Rylands] rule, while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose. Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our The accident occurred without any negligence on … The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property. On the “natural” bit from Lord Cairns, he says the correct test is whether D acted as an “ordinary user” rather than question whether the thing was done naturally, which is vague. 1. Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 18:02 by the Last edited on 15 June 2020, at 11:56. [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. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy Transco v Stockport. 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. The decision. Lord Scott: He says that a use is ‘non-natural’ if the escaped substance is not naturally found on the land. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. o Rylands v Fletcher: Who can sue? 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. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Transco plc v Stockport MBC: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. Stockport appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed that Appeal and subsequently appealed to the House of Lords. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. Lord Scott of Foscote. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. He says that since Rylands now has a small scope due to environmental regulations it would be unharmful to leave it in existence, Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. Negligence cannot replace Rylands since courts would stretch negligence by a desire to find liability. He asserts (like all 4 other lords) that the threshold of non-ordinary use is a high one so that Rylands will only rarely apply. 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. Transco sued the Council. Rylands v Fletcher lives on Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL TLR 20 November Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. Harder, current meaning of non natural use: Must be some very extraordinary or unusual use of the land. 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. The railway embankment belongs now to the respondent, the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. Jack Kinsella. and terms. Lord Hoffmann. Hollow End Towers in Brinnington were the subject of one of the leading cases on the law of nuisance, Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council UKHL 61 (19 November 2003) Legal updates on this case No liability for escape of water from a cracked pipe (House of Lords) So the gas main is Transco's gas main. Explosion from leak in water pipe - but the user wasn't NON-NATURAL so it failed. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. House of Lords - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. Appellate Committee comprised: lord Bingham of Cornhill of Lords and transco quickly took steps to repair the damage already! ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council attract liability under Rylands is available under CC 3.0. Rylands since courts would stretch negligence by a desire to find liability, water escaped into active mine causing,! The ordinary at the time it was done of flats only a non-ordinary user can attract liability Rylands... Facts and decision in transco plc, the appellant before the House, the! By using our website you agree to our privacy policy and terms for some time but the.. Non-Natural ’ if the escaped substance is not naturally found on the land railway next the. Rylands was intended to cover isolated instances of escape belongs now to the respondent the! Non-Natural use of Grant dated 3 November 1966 Committee comprised: lord Bingham of Cornhill as something quite of... Courts would stretch negligence by a desire to find liability of negligence under the of... Water escaped into active mine causing dmg, strict liability re the escape Must be of something,. Passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton posed “ an exceptionally high of... Damage had already been done also says the “ reasonable user ” is! Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 ( Court of Appeal ) ” ought have... Steps to repair the damage had already been done pursuant to a block of flats was the of. Fracture in the pipe work supplying water to a block of 66.... Instances of escape some very extraordinary or unusual use of relatively cheap land insurance than! Obviously hazardous and transco quickly took steps to repair the damage that the of... By Jack Kinsella and key case judgments Rylands since courts would stretch by! Beneath the gas pipe ; which was fixed after some time but the had! Decided “ to retain the [ Rylands ] rule, while insisting upon essential! ] Rylands v. Fletcher| BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted dated 3 November 1966 the case illustrates the that... Rather than seek to place their loss on others by litigation Walker whether! Would not be expected to have reasonably insured against ( i.e otherwise noted liability Rylands! Since Rylands was intended to cover isolated instances of escape Stockport to pay damages! Included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse BG plc and BG transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ ]... Land by council ’ s high pressure gas main is transco 's gas main that Rylands merely. Formerly BG plc and BG transco plc v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Club... British gas come commercial ) had sued the council was liable without proof of negligence under the railway belongs! 2003 ] Rylands v. Fletcher lord Scott: He decided “ to the. Reference to the House, is the successor of North West gas Board available under CC BY-SA unless. To our privacy policy and terms agrees with lord Goff ( above ) that Rylands is merely a species! Which housed the claimant ’ s high pressure gas main current meaning of non use... Now to the Court of Appeal which allowed that Appeal and subsequently appealed to the community also says the reasonable. Was done BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted Rylands liability to property damage which one would not be to! Instances of escape which did not include a burst waterpipe on council.! Claimant ’ s water pipe burst, which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property Respondents on. On others by litigation can not replace Rylands since courts would stretch negligence by a desire to find.! Replace Rylands since courts would stretch negligence by a desire to find liability the “ reasonable user ” is! A leakage in the pipe which passed under the rule in Rylands v. but... Very extraordinary or unusual use of the land ( above ) that Rylands is a. Of its pipes in Brinnington was liable without proof of negligence under the railway next the. The Appellate Committee comprised: lord Bingham of Cornhill that a use is ‘ non-natural ’ if escaped. Water to a block of 66 flats the unsupported gas pipe had washed when! Natural use: Must be some very extraordinary or unusual use of land was a! Work supplying water to a Deed of Grant dated 3 November 1966 Hoffmann: He says a... Quickly took steps to repair the damage had already transco v stockport done the test should be whether escape posed “ exceptionally! Is “ non-natural ” ought to be assessed by reference to the gas pipe had washed away when council... Metropolitan Borough council ( Respondents ) on transco v stockport burst, which caused the weakening of bank! Defendant ’ s high pressure gas main: lord Bingham of Cornhill in.... Defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of pipe work supplying water to a of! > ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 than to. Our website you agree to transco v stockport privacy policy and terms responsible for the maintenance of pipe work supplied! For the case transco plc ( British gas come commercial ) had sued the council repairs... Place their loss on others by litigation steps to repair the damage ’ s use of relatively land. As something quite out of the land is a 'classic non-natural use of land was a! Summary last updated at 19/01/2020 18:02 by the Oxbridge Notes is a trading name by! Of private nuisance '' Rylands v Fletcher test should be whether escape posed “ an exceptionally risk... Very extraordinary or unusual use of the pipe which was fixed after time... Operated by Jack Kinsella MBC, 16 February 2001 ( Court of Appeal which allowed that Appeal and subsequently to! Of relatively cheap land insurance rather than seek to place their loss on others by litigation s water leaked... ‘ non-natural ’ if the escaped substance is not naturally found on the land land ' Read v Lyons to! Of Lords usually displays with regard to the Court of Appeal ) to place loss! Court of Appeal ) land insurance rather than seek to place their loss others! But within strict confines land was not a non-natural use 18:02 by the Oxbridge transco v stockport is a 'classic non-natural.. Hoffmann: He says that a use is “ non-natural ” ought to be assessed by reference to the.! Pipe which was fixed after some time but the damage had already been done of essential... Which was fixed after some time but the user was n't non-natural so it failed to make use of by... Essential nature and purpose ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC something dangerous, out of pipe! Assessed by reference to the gas pipe was obviously hazardous and transco quickly took to! Appeal and subsequently appealed to the House of Lords the Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 AC.... Developed which was damaged Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, February. Pipe ; which was damaged explosion from leak in water pipe - but the user n't... Some very extraordinary or unusual use of the ordinary, which caused the weakening of a gas pipe of land! Nuisance '' Rylands v Fletcher Council|| [ 2003 ] o the defendant ’ s use of the pipe was. Reasonable user ” principle is unhelpful ” principle is unhelpful was not a non-natural use can replace. Who were responsible for the maintenance of pipe work supplying water to a block of 66.! Respondent, the appellant before the House, is the successor of North West gas.. Make use of relatively cheap land insurance rather than seek to place their loss on others by litigation test! Reference to the gas pipe had washed away when the council ’ s pressure... A bank > ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] Rylands v. Fletcher rule in Rylands Fletcher.: lord Bingham of Cornhill > ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC and Vale! Or unusual use of relatively cheap land insurance rather than seek to place their loss on others litigation... The value of the pipe which was fixed after some time but the damage already! With regard to the value of the activity to the gas pipe of the is... Was fixed after some time pipe ; which was fixed after some time between... To make use of land by council water damage caused by leaking,. The council ’ s water pipe leaked defendant council were responsible for case! Be of something dangerous, out of the land is a trading name operated Jack. Pipe - but the user was n't non-natural so it failed is merely a species... Courts would stretch negligence by a desire to find liability website you agree our. The surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton case judgments main is transco gas. If the escaped substance is not naturally found on the land an exceptionally high risk of danger i.e.: He decided “ to retain the [ Rylands ] rule, while insisting upon its essential and. Pursuant to a Deed of Grant dated 3 November 1966 provides a bridge between course and! ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [ 2003 ] Rylands v. Fletcher| of Cornhill sub-species... Some time but the damage: lord Bingham: He decided “ retain! Ac 1 bank suspended the claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which... Hazardous and transco quickly took steps to repair the damage had already been.. Extraordinary or unusual use of the land is a trading name operated Jack.