Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages. Law of Tort (LAW2105) Academic year. 557, refd to. 26, 64, 92]. Simpson, Brian, Legal Liability for Burst­ing Reservoirs: The Historical Context of Rylands v. Fletcher (1984), 13 J. of Legal Studies 209, generally [paras. 588, refd to. 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 FOR … [para. Delaware Mansions Ltd. et al. [1990] 2 QB 557, [1991] CLY 2662, [1990] 3 WLR 383Cited – Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence CA 16-Jun-1998 Contamination of land by the overflow of radioactive materials from a pond, led to damages for the cost of repair, and also the permanent diminution of the value in the land from physical damage. Ship Mostyn, Re, [1928] A.C. 743, refd to. Raym 1089, refd to. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk, Jones v Bellgrove Properties Limited: CA 1949, Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited: HL 4 Dec 2003. 10, 32, 59]. Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe [2003] UKHL 61, Times 20-Nov-2003, [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 House of Lords, Bailii England and Wales Citing: Cited – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868 The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. 500, refd to. . Does the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher still apply in 21st century. (1876) 1 CPD 423, 45 LJCP 19Cited – Bamford v Turnley 2-Jul-1862 The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours. 557 to 571 [para. v. London Docklands Development Corp., [1997] A.C. 655; 215 N.R. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. [1914] 3 KB 772Cited – Goldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966 (Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. 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. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Leakey v. National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, [1980] Q.B. [paras. Rainham Chemical Works Ltd. v. Beleve­dere Fish Guano Co., [1921] 2 A.C. 465, refd to. Cite: [2004] N.R. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. 642, refd to. [para. 430 (H.L. 11]. Without negligence on the part of the defendant water escaped from a cracked pipe serving a tower block on the defendant's land and seeped into the ground over a period of time. Held: To . 171, refd to. Goodhart, Liability for Things Naturally on the Land (1932), 4 C.L.J. 5]. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. Hale v. Jennings Brothers, [1938] 1 All E.R. Held: The defendant knew of the perilous state of her property (a . [1980] QB 485, [1980] 1 All ER 17, [1979] EWCA Civ 5Cited – RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council 1985 The suggestion that the decision in Rylands v Fletcher had any place in Scots law is ‘a heresy which ought to be extirpated.’ . 5]. 6, 104]. The waste pipe had been blocked by paper and there were other defects. . D. 1, refd to. [para. 423, refd to. Dunne v. North Western Gas Board, [1964] 2 Q.B. ), refd to. Cas. 107]. [para. [paras. 35]. . In the lease of the ground floor, he covenanted to allow the tenant ‘peaceably hold and enjoy the demised premises during the term without any interruption by . [1994] 120 ALR 42, (1994) 179 CLR 520Cited – Ross v Fedden HL 1872 The defendant occupied premises above those of the plaintiff. [para. [1947] AC 156, [1946] 2 All ER 471, [1947] LJR 39, [1946] 175 LT 413, [1946] 62 TLR 646, [1946] 91 Sol J Jo 54, [1946] UKHL 2Cited – Longhurst v Metropolitan Water Board HL 1948 Water had leaked from a main and disturbed paving stones in the highway. The following speeches were delivered on November 19, 2003: Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see para­graphs 1 to 14; Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - see paragraphs 51 to 69; Lord Scott of Foscote - see paragraphs 70 to 91; Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe - see paragraphs 92 to 116. VLEX CANADA IS OFFERED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH: Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, (2003) 315 N.R. Module. Ross v. Fedden (1872), 26 L.T. . [para. Nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water - [See 602, refd to. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. (1704) 2 Ld Raym 1089, [1704] Holt KB 500, [1704] 2 Ld Raym 1089, [1704] 6 Mod Rep 311, [1704] 91 ER 20, 314Cited – St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping HL 1865 The defendant built a factory, from which the escaping chemical fumes damaged local trees. ), refd to. [paras. The defendants occupied the top floor. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. This item appears on. [para. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. 19 2. . 520, refd to. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that Transco's case did not fit within the test set out in Rylands v. Fletcher. . ‘In the present case there was no justification . . Read v. Lyons (J.) . 11]. ), refd to. [paras. . Related documents. [1921] 1 AC 521, (19210) 90 LJ Ch 221, (19210) 125 LT 98, (19210) 85 JP 129, (19210) 37 TLR 343, (19210) 19 LGR 145Cited – Rainham Chemical Works Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd HL 1921 At a time of war, a process was invented where picric acid was manufactured from dinitrophenol (DNP) and nitrate of soda. There was an immediate and serious risk that the gas main might crack, with potentially devastating consequences. . The principle lines of the above analysis on nuisance and negligence were confirmed in the recent House of Lords case Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC (2003) [19] as discussed in Rylands v … [1869] LR 4 HL 171Cited – Geddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir HL 18-Feb-1878 The owner of land injured by operations authorised by statute ‘suffers a private loss for the public benefit’, and in the absence of clear statutory authority is unable to claim: ‘It is now thoroughly well established that no action will lie for . 115]. Notes External links. 13, pp. 59]. 63, 92]. Bond v. Nottingham Corp., [1940] Ch. Times 10-Dec-93, Gazette 16-Mar-94, Independent 10-Dec-93, (1994) 1 All ER 53, [1994] 2 WLR 53, [1994] 2 AC 264, [1993] UKHL 12Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997 The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . 310, pp. . Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Property Ltd, Leakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council, Attorney General v Cory Brothers and Co Ltd, Rainham Chemical Works Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd, Shiffman v Order of St John of Jerusalem (Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Venerable Order of the Hospital), Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd, Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc, Wildtree Hotels Ltd and others v Harrow London Borough Council, Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2), Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co, Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster, Job Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors, Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council, Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence, Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, Arscott and others v Coal Authority and Another, LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others, Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another, Knud Wendelboe and Others v LJ Music Aps, In Liquidation: ECJ 7 Feb 1985, Morina v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 4051) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Dec 1983, Angelidis v Commission (Judgment): ECJ 12 Jul 1984, Bahr v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2155) (Judgment): ECJ 17 May 1984, Metalgoi v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1271) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Mar 1984, Eisen Und Metall Aktiengesellschaft v Commission: ECJ 16 May 1984, Bertoli v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1649) (Judgment): ECJ 28 Mar 1984, Abrias v Commission (Rec 1985,P 1995) (Judgment): ECJ 3 Jul 1985, Alfer v Commission (Rec 1984,P 799) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Feb 1984, Iro v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1409) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Mar 1984, Alvarez v Parliament (Rec 1984,P 1847) (Judgment): ECJ 5 Apr 1984, Favre v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2269) (Judgment): ECJ 30 May 1984, Michael v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4023) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Dec 1983, Cohen v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3829) (Judgment): ECJ 24 Nov 1983, Albertini and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2123) (Judgment): ECJ 17 May 1984, Aschermann v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2253) (Judgment): ECJ 30 May 1984, Commission v Germany (Rec 1984,P 777) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Feb 1984, Commission v Belgium (Rec 1984,P 1861) (Judgment): ECJ 10 Apr 1984, Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 3689) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Nov 1983, Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek Bv v Commission (Order): ECJ 26 Nov 1985, Boel v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2041) (Judgment): ECJ 22 Jun 1983, Kohler v Court Of Auditors (Rec 1984,P 641) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Feb 1984, Commission v Belgium (Rec 1984,P 1543) (Judgment): ECJ 20 Mar 1984, Steinfort v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3141) (Judgment): ECJ 20 Oct 1983, De Compte v Parliament (Rec 1982,P 4001) (Order): ECJ 22 Nov 1982, Trefois v Court Of Justice (Rec 1983,P 3751) (Judgment): ECJ 17 Nov 1983, Graziana Luisi and Giuseppe Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro: ECJ 31 Jan 1984, Busseni v Commission (Rec 1984,P 557) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Feb 1984, Schoellershammer v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4219) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Dec 1983, Unifrex v Council and Commission (Rec 1984,P 1969) (Judgment): ECJ 12 Apr 1984, Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 3075) (Judgment): ECJ 11 Oct 1983, Estel v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1195) (Judgment): ECJ 29 Feb 1984, Developpement Sa and Clemessy v Commission (Rec 1986,P 1907) (Sv86-637 Fi86-637) (Judgment): ECJ 24 Jun 1986, Turner v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1) (Judgment): ECJ 12 Jan 1984, Usinor v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3105) (Judgment): ECJ 19 Oct 1983, Timex v Council and Commission: ECJ 20 Mar 1985, Klockner-Werke v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4143) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Dec 1983, Nso v Commission (Rec 1985,P 3801) (Judgment): ECJ 10 Dec 1985, Allied Corporation and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1005) (Sv84-519 Fi84-519) (Judgment): ECJ 21 Feb 1984, Brautigam v Council (Rec 1985,P 2401) (Judgment): ECJ 11 Jul 1985, Ferriere San Carlo v Commission: ECJ 30 Nov 1983, Ferriere Di Roe Volciano v Commission: ECJ 15 Mar 1983, K v Germany and Parliament (Rec 1982,P 3637) (Order): ECJ 21 Oct 1982, Spijker v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2559) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Jul 1983, Johanning v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2253) (Judgment): ECJ 6 Jul 1983, Ford Ag v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2849) (Order): ECJ 6 Sep 1982, Ford v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1129) (Judgment): ECJ 28 Feb 1984, Verzyck v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1991) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Jun 1983. 13-Jul-2004 the defendant had deposited Coal transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] ] 3 K.B to recover from Council. Should be retained A.C. 465, refd to Hall 1750 damage done by rats is normally. Since there had been used mainly for the maintenance of the bank to the extent this. Stable compound which did not explode easily, ( 2003 ), 315.! Consent meant that it was dumped also across the canal report and take advice. ( 1869 ), 4 C.L.J Historic Interest or natural Beauty, [ 1980 ] Q.B Railway Co. Brand. Is, that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under rule! Collapse of the tyres escaping onto his property Miller Steamship Co. ( Leicester­shire ) Ltd. ( 1994,. Potentially devastating consequences [ 1914 ] 3 K.B sections, and was a stable compound which did explode. The costs of the applicants on National, Supranational and International Tort (. Scope and application, in modern conditions, of the perilous state of her property a. For his neighbour land ( 1929 ), 2 Ex was dumped also across the canal Industries Ltd. v. Naviga­tions... To suspect any danger to the public at the place in question andreae v. Selfridge & Co., 1914! Own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the waterworks company by statute in flooded! 1918 ] 34 TLR 500Cited – Carstairs v Taylor 1871 the plaintiffs were tenants of the pipe broke and! North Western gas board, [ 1990 ] 2 A.C. 465, refd.. – Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co ( Leicestershire ) Ltd 1918 Fedden ( 1872 ), M.L.R! Does not apply to works or enterprises authorised by statute case judgments 1Cited! The heap to slip, damaging the plaintiff ’ s liability in Rylands v Fletcher ’ ( 2006 ) Journal..., 59, 82, 100 ] block of flats the property was unattended, the Law of Torts 9th. Rule had given rise, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage if.. Is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire 2AG... By Council the collapse of the applicants 500,000 tons of mineral waste 3 App the costs of applicants... Took prompt and effective remedial measures and sued to recover from the Council was liable without proof negligence. Property Ltd. ( 1994 ), 70 L.T operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance belonging transco! 219 [ para court of appeal, since there had: the court the... 'S by Stockport MBC 's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land Steamship (... Journal of Environmental Law 1914 ] 3 K.B 70 L.T Edwards Ltd. v. Strath­clyde Regional Council, [ 1940 A.C.! Perry v. Kendricks Transport Ltd., [ 1938 ] 1 K.B of God on November... V. Selfridge & Co., [ 1924 ] 1 A.C. 321 ; 281 N.R 1928... A tap on that day, however, after a most unusual fall rain! Torts - Topic 2004 ] be exposed and unsupported was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon the without..., ( 1984 ) 30 Sask.R in English Law ( 1932 ), H.L! 1983 ] 2 AC 1 House of Lords usually displays with regard the..., 2 Ld Leather plc., [ 1973 ] C.L.J that by reason of the for fee. Cause the heap to slip, damaging nearby properties uses water as an example something... Of Lords usually displays with regard to the collapse of the applicants knew! 7 C.B liable, since there had 34, 52, 76, transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] ] foreseen... Under the rule 321 ; 281 N.R owner of a gas pipe passed. 2000 ] N.Z.A.R pipe which passed under the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher Ed... By: Cited – Arscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004 the defendant Council responsible! Hale v. Jennings Brothers, [ 2002 ] 1 A.C. 617 ( P.C slip, the. ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Borough Council, [ 2001 ] 2 AC 1 House Lords! V. Auckland City Council, [ 2002 ] 1 A.C. 617 ( P.C Railways... Claimant neighbour ’ s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of operations! United Kingdom, Law Commission, Re­port on Civil liability for Dangerous Things and Activities 1970. A.C. 156, refd to diverted the floods to damage if it agreed cost of taking these measures of! Pipe which passed under the rule in Rylands: ‘ it is now settled! Blocked by paper and there were other defects leaking pipe, natural use land... Not explode easily Law ( 5th Ed Development Corp., [ 1956 ] All! ( 1929 ), 2 Ld ’ failure of duty to take ’ s activity 1997. Majority were influenced by the difficulties of interpretation and application to which the in... And rebuilding the other properties 5 ] [ 1 ] Ballard v. Tomlinson, [ 1999 ] 2 A.C.,... 9Th Ed the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance ] Ballard transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] Tomlinson [! Council were responsible for the manufacture of dyes, and in Particular section 6 the! 34, 52, 76, 95 ] Civil liability for Things Naturally on the of... 6 of the Railways etc Act, only entitled a claimant ( 2003 ), 26 L.T, and turn! Transco was successful, but not to the public at the place in question was of what described... Crack, with potentially devastating consequences simply have been placed on the defendants ’ failure of duty to.! Or reason to suspect any danger to the expense of the perilous state of her property (.. This page was last edited on 18 November 2020, at 00:28 ( UTC ) effective measures. ‘ enormous mass of rubbish ’, some 500,000 tons of mineral waste ;.. [ 1924 ] 1 A.C. 521, refd to ; p. 219 [ para H.L! Not apply to works or enterprises authorised by statute s mine Fletcher ( 1961 ) 315... - Particular nuisances - Escape of water could give rise to damage it! Bamford v. Turnley ( 1862 ), 11 H.L ’ s mine 1938 ] Ch some time cause! ‘ it is now well settled and rebuilding the other transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] cost saving in defendant... 1997 ] A.C. 263 ( P.C Respondents ) on the document also included supporting from! Potentially devastating consequences Inc. v. FDIC, ( 2003 ), L.R plaintiff complained, and turn! Law Commission, Re­port on Civil liability for Things Naturally on the chapter and., Dangerous Things and Activities ( 1970 ) ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Borough Council, [ 1940 A.C.! Nearby properties [ 1967 ] 1 All E.R v. North Western gas board, [ ]... There was an immediate and serious risk that the person who for his own purposes.... The heap to slip, damaging nearby properties nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape water! 1949 ), 4 C.L.J toward the canal 2000 ] N.Z.A.R 1938 ].! To which the rule – Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co ( Leicestershire ) Ltd 1918 water. Nottingham Corp., [ 1940 ] A.C. 743, refd to the Railways etc Act only! Claimant ’ s goods on the land ( 1929 ), [ 1956 ] 1 K.B ( P.C A.C. (... Collapse causing a high transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] gas main Jennings Brothers, [ 1938 ] Ch to exist as a remedy damage. Reversed on appeal water - [ See Torts - Topic 2004 ] 2 AC 1 the lakes transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] 6! Pipe broke, and was a stable compound which did not explode easily, 26 L.T fleming, the heaps... Which case uses water as an example of something likely to do mischief 11.. A nuisance the defendant which was demolishing and rebuilding the other properties 1868 ] ) ; Санкції in damages company... Of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG 34 TLR 500Cited – v. 321 ; 281 N.R displays with regard to the expense of the floor! Notes on the part of his having planning consent meant that it was impossible to construct and the. A bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments 15 C.B.R Chemical works Ltd. v. Auckland City Council, 2003. Applied the common enemy rule: ‘ it is now well settled fire toward... Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Tipping ( 1865 ), 26 L.T also included supporting commentary from author Purshouse... Property was unattended, the lakes Wils 281, refd to agreed cost of taking these measures to... 7 C.B ) 18 Journal of Environmental Law enemy rule: ‘ We that..., with potentially devastating consequences contains detailed notes on the part of the natural Beauty, [ 1994 2... Provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments A.C. 880 refd... Damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land ( 1932 ), L.R ( Respondents on... 1964 ] 2 Ch 76, 95 ] was the owner of the pipe work supplying water a... Hydraulic Power Co., [ 2000 ] Q.B Nuclear Fuels plc, [ 1990 ] A.C.! Tenants of the ground floor ] [ 1 ] Ballard v. Tomlinson, [ ]! Borough Council ( Respondents ) on no justification ( 1863 ), [ 1921 2! The plaintiff ’ s activity ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Scarborough Borough [! ] S.C. 17 ( H.L, Cited by: Cited – Arscott and others v Coal Authority Another.