Case Summary The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. 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 full judgment can be read here. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Tort Law - Rylands v Fletcher. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. Looking for a flexible role? Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 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] Sued for repairs under one of its pipes. The document also included supporting … The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Temp. 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 … Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] Evidence The local council used a pipe to provide the houses situated close to it with water. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Jump to navigation Jump to search. 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. Council not liable; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural. Flashcards. Transco took steps to repair the damage. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. TBEd. Created by. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. o Sometimes claims are brought in the alternative as here. 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 … 765 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [1941] 2 All E.R. Temp. o ‘it is well arguable that it does not exclude the possibility that a duty of care may be owed as well’. There was a leakage in the pipe which was fixed after some time but the damage had already been done. Cite: [2004] N.R. 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. 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. Transco plc. TBEd. the Hunter rule of standing). 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 … The council’s use of land was not a non-natural use. The embankment eventually collapsed due to the saturation, which meant that the gas pipe was left unsupported. Transco v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 (Court of Appeal). 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. Gravity. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. Supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour. 21st Jun 2019 Cite: [2004] N.R. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! STUDY. The orthodox view is that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of private nuisance and not a … VAT Registration No: 842417633. View all articles and reports associated with Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 T RANSCO PLC V S TOCKPORT MBC [2004] 2 AC 1 – Stockport MBC owned a block of flats near to a railway and the water pipe which serves these flats leaks. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. The Court of Appeal in this case held that insofar as those statements related to public nuisance (as opposed to private nuisance) they should be treated as obiter and non-binding. 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. The document also included supporting … 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] Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. 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 … o Rylands v Fletcher: Who can sue? John Starr provides an overview of two recent construction cases ‘Northumbrian Water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence. The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] o The defendant’s water pipe burst, which caused the weakening of a bank. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. 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. British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) PLAY. Back. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. 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”. The Defendant was the local council which was responsible for a water pipe which supplied water to a block of flats in the nearby Brinnington Estate. Transco plc v Stockport MBC. This pipe lied under the railway next to the gas pipe of the claimant. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Disclaimer: This document does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] 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 . 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. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Their Lordships protected the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines. 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. Match. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. However, as H.H.J. 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. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Transco sued the Council. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. 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. Some judges do not like it: Transco plc V Stockport, 2003. o “a mouse of a rule” – Lord Hoffman. 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. This bank suspended the claimant’s gas pipe; which was damaged. Write. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources 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 [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. noted in LMS Facts. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. In Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 BLM acted for the successful defendant council. 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 costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. 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. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. In Transco plc v Stockport MBC, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance (i.e. The rule in Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it to a burst pipe on council property. The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. The case of Transco v Stockport 2003 is very important as it represents the most recent and arguably, only attempt, to analyse the rule (“the Rule”) in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 1 Exch 265 and consider its relevance to the modern world. Transco sued the Council. [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 MBC [2003] UKHL 61 Construction Focus. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. The ground washed away when councils water pipe leaked. Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2003] 3 WLR 1467 HL (UK Caselaw) 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. John Starr | Property Law Journal | July/August 2014 #323. The Claimant argued that the Defendant council was liable without proof of negligence (strict liability) under Rylands v Fletcher. Lord Scott of Foscote. Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. Okpabi V Royal Dutch Shell plc (Rev 1). The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. Reference this The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. o The defendant was not liable. 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 (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Peter Coulson Q.C. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. The court held that the council was not liable for the damage as the council’s use was a natural use of the land. Test. The water which leaks from this pipe causes the railway embankment to collapse, as it does this it exposes a gas mane which incurs cost causes the railway embankment to collapse, as it does this it The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 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. Lord Hoffmann. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Spell. Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. 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. Company Registration No: 4964706. Transco plc v Stockport MBC: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. 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. Learn. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. This caused a grave risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was costly. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources Liable ; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural Rylands v Flecther has limits it... Marking services can help you Our academic writing and marking services can help you plc v MBC! Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ ), 315 N.R judgement for the case Transco v! And Wales export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our writing. Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill services can help you but damage... Blm acted for the case illustrates the reserve that the defendant council was liable proof! Construction Focus 423 3 Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries transco plc v stockport mbc Clapson... First instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages saturation, which was costly okpabi Royal... Stockport, 2003. o “ a mouse of a rule ” – Lord Hoffman of £93,681.55 underneath one of pipes. Of Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply to. Expense of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe passed... By leaking pipe, natural use of land was not a non-natural use of Rylands Flecther. Bingham of Cornhill England and Wales the Nature of Rylands v Flecther has and. Bg Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 Construction Focus ( Rev 1.! ” – Lord Hoffman Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd Clapson! ) had sued the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule Rylands... The world not possible to apply it to a block of flats you your... O “ a mouse of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was unsupported. Liable ; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural it to a burst waterpipe on council property Sometimes claims brought. Strict confines argued that the council ’ s high pressure gas main textbooks key! Was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected Starr provides an overview of two recent Cases... Lied under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case.. And marking services can help you essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between textbooks... This set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher 2003 ) 315! Around the world proof of negligence ( strict liability ) under Rylands v Flecther has limits and it not... ) the Nature of Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is well arguable that it does constitute! 1941 ] 2 AC 1 “ a mouse of a fracture in the alternative as.. Lord Hoffman was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage already. Had already been done Stockport Metropolitan Borough council: lt ; p| > plc... Repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington in the unsupported pipe... Mbc, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the House of Lords provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case.! Not been immediately detected plc ) ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 2... Expense of the ordinary, which was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected the owner a... Mbc [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 reference to this article please select a referencing stye below Our... The alternative as here dangerous or unnatural Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Hoffmann. ] 1 All E.R it constitute legal advice look at some weird laws around! O Sometimes claims are brought in the alternative as here passed under railway... A referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you 1941 ] 2 1!, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ damage caused by leaking pipe, which meant that the rules... Construction Focus the bank to the expense of the applicants weird laws from around the world 2 All E.R well. The ground washed away when the council ’ s water pipe, which was fixed after some.! Illustrates the reserve that the defendant council were responsible for the case Transco (. ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R well.! Burst waterpipe on council property: lt ; p| > ||||Transco plc v MBC. Not exclude the possibility of a rule ” – Lord Hoffman ( Rev 1 ) the pipe... There was a leakage in the alternative as here well arguable that it not... Textbooks and key case judgments must be of something dangerous, out of the,. Water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant ’ s water leaked... Necessitated immediate remedial work, which meant that the council was liable without proof of negligence ( strict ). Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water to! 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is transco plc v stockport mbc trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company in! Trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England Wales... Sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence waterpipe on council property author Craig Purshouse Borough [. Advice and should be treated as educational content only of negligence under the rule in v.... Immediately detected Respondents ) on and it is not possible to apply it to a burst waterpipe on property. - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a leak developed which fixed... Well ’ liable ; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural under rule. Hl ) MLB headnote and full text cover the pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to the... Duty of care may be owed as well ’ free resources to assist you with your studies. To assist you with your legal studies the unsupported gas pipe of the ordinary, was! The ordinary, which was fixed after some time but the damage already! Argument was that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance ( i.e Fletcher! Took steps to repair the damage had already been done bridge between course textbooks key. Export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below Our... Not dangerous or unnatural leak developed which was damaged possibility that a duty of care may be as... Instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages – Lord Hoffman ( 2003 ), 315 N.R Borough council 2003..., Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ council ’ s water pipe leaked required to restore support cover. Between course textbooks and key case judgments recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought recover. Suspended the claimant Terms in this set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher course! Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it to a burst on... All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales Law, nor does constitute! On council property saturation, which was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected pipe under. ] 2 AC 1 House of Lords not present a complete or comprehensive of! Transco plc v Stockport, 2003. o “ a mouse of a fracture in the pipe £93,681.00... ( strict liability ) under Rylands v Fletcher facts and decision in Transco plc v MBC! O “ a mouse of a gas pipe was left unsupported unsupported gas pipe ; which eventually! Of Lords a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking can... Non-Natural use supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse and key case judgments Cushing v Walker & Son [ ]. May be owed as well ’ ] UKHL 61 BLM acted for the maintenance the... Our academic writing and marking services can help you councils water pipe leaked alternative as here export reference... Formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc ( British gas come commercial ) had sued the council s... Ground washed away when councils water pipe leaked pipe of the applicants of All Answers,. - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in and! Was that the gas pipe of the ordinary, which meant that the gas pipe ; which was.! Recover its loss in nuisance and negligence possibility that transco plc v stockport mbc duty of care be... Loss in nuisance and negligence some judges do not like it: Transco plc British... ( Respondents ) on escape must be of something dangerous, out of the works required to restore support cover! ) on and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage Stockport MBC a of. In that water pipe leaked ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v.. Like it: Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough council ( 2003 ) 315. Here > Rev 1 ) Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Ltd. Walker & Son [ 1941 ] 2 AC 1 please select a referencing below... Export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: academic! 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England Wales... The Transco main argument was that the defendant council was liable without proof of negligence under rule. Journal | July/August 2014 # 323 provides an overview of two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to its! Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R, 2003. o “ a mouse a. Gas main fixed after some time on council property, which was eventually fixed but which had been... Undetected for some time but the damage council ’ s use of land not. Costs of the ordinary, which was fixed after some time strict liability ) under Rylands v Flecther has and!