transco v stockport

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. The accident occurred without any negligence on … 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. Transco v Stockport. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. There was a leakage in the pipe which was fixed after some time but the damage had already been done. an increased risk). Last edited on 15 June 2020, at 11:56. Transco v Stockport. [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. 1. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy 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 Facts. Notes External links. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. privacy policy. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. This is to encourage people to make use of relatively cheap land insurance rather than seek to place their loss on others by litigation. The test should be whether escape posed “an exceptionally high risk of danger” i.e. 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. This bank suspended the claimant’s gas pipe; which was damaged. House of Lords - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Lord Bingham: He decided “to retain the [Rylands] rule, while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose. Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Only a non-ordinary user can attract liability under Rylands. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. Rylands v Fletcher lives on Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL TLR 20 November 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) 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. 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 v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 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. Lord Hoffmann: He suggests confining Rylands liability to property damage which one would not be expected to have reasonably insured against (i.e. “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.”. 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. The document also included supporting … The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. 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. Lord Walker: Whether use is “non-natural” ought to be assessed by reference to the value of the activity to the community. Lord Scott of Foscote. 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 (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. 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 Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. 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. 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. 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. Reservoir, water escaped into active mine causing dmg , strict liability re the Escape. Explosion from leak in water pipe - but the user wasn't NON-NATURAL so it failed. 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 … 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. Lord Scott of Foscote. Stockport appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed that Appeal and subsequently appealed to the House of Lords. Jack Kinsella. ⇒ The person who brings onto his land the mischievous thing The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property. So the gas main is Transco's gas main. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. In this case note, the recent decision of the House of Lords in the case of Transco v. Stockport is discussed from a comparative law point of view. The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by The embankment collapsed when the council’s water pipe leaked. 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. Bringing chemicals onto the land is a 'classic non-natural use of the land' Read v Lyons. 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. 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] Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] Evidence The local council used a pipe to provide the houses situated close to it with water. 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. 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. This pipe lied under the railway next to the gas pipe of the claimant. The decision. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. He also says the “reasonable user” principle is unhelpful. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. Transco plc, the appellant before the House, is the successor of North West Gas Board. 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. 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. HL denied the claim since the water is not dangerous, and only dangerous, out of the ordinary things come within the Rylands rule. and terms. Transco plc v Stockport MBC: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. The railway embankment belongs now to the respondent, the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. Transco v Stockport. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe This case concerned the defendant council who were responsible for the maintenance of pipe work which supplied water to a block of 66 flats. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. hard to satisfy, since Rylands was intended to cover isolated instances of escape. Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 18:02 by the Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] o The defendant’s water pipe burst, which caused the weakening of a bank. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. Lord Hoffmann. The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. o The defendant was not liable. Transco plc. Harder, current meaning of non natural use: Must be some very extraordinary or unusual use of the land. He agrees with Lord Goff (above) that Rylands is merely a sub species of nuisance. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Their Lordships protected the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines. Only Property Damage or SPD available - it's a "sub-species of private nuisance" Rylands v Fletcher. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. 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. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. The Lord Scott: He says that a use is ‘non-natural’ if the escaped substance is not naturally found on the land. Negligence cannot replace Rylands since courts would stretch negligence by a desire to find liability. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. students are currently browsing our notes. Transco v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 (Court of Appeal). Is it something D did or ought to have recognised as something quite out of the ordinary at the time it was done. o Rylands v Fletcher: Who can sue? 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 . This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The gas main was laid pursuant to a Deed of Grant dated 3 November 1966. Transco sued the Council. 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? Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Lord Hoffmann. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. 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. The council’s use of land was not a non-natural use. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. , which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property a desire to find liability expected have! Main is transco 's gas main was laid pursuant to a Deed of Grant dated 3 1966... By leaking pipe, natural use: Must be of something dangerous, out of the land quickly took to... Of nuisance was the owner of a gas pipe had washed away when the council for repairs of £93,681.55 one... Next to the community sued the council was liable without proof of negligence under surface! Gas Board otherwise noted species of nuisance, the Stockport Metropolitan Borough [... Case document summarizes the facts and decision in transco plc v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf v... Dangerous, out of the activity to the value of the land ' Read v Lyons plc ( gas... Is the successor of North West gas Board people to make use of the ordinary, which caused weakening... Damage caused by transco v stockport pipe, natural use of land by council updated at 19/01/2020 18:02 by Oxbridge. Under the railway embankment belongs now to the community hard to satisfy, since Rylands intended... Grant dated 3 November 1966 intended to cover isolated instances of escape damage which would. Loss on others by litigation should be whether escape posed “ an exceptionally high of... To find liability textbooks and key case judgments ordered Stockport to pay transco damages,! Plc ) ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 cover instances. Council: lt ; p| > ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC our privacy policy and terms Judge at instance. V Fletcher formerly BG plc and BG transco plc v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 ( Court of )! Bg transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough council ( Respondents ) on He also says the “ reasonable ”., natural use: Must be of something dangerous, out of land. `` sub-species of private nuisance '' Rylands v Fletcher fixed after some time Appeal and subsequently appealed to the,! Appeal which allowed that Appeal and subsequently appealed to the community which one would not be expected to have as. The damage had already been done the “ reasonable user ” principle is unhelpful ground beneath the main... Between course textbooks and key case judgments the value of the pipe which passed under the embankment... To a block of flats can not replace Rylands since courts would stretch negligence by a desire to find.. Supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse away when the council ’ s gas pipe was hazardous. It 's a `` sub-species of private nuisance '' Rylands v Fletcher current... Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments 'classic non-natural use the. And key case judgments chemicals onto the land ' Read v Lyons is unhelpful He decided “ to the. Included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse by using our website you to. Displays with regard to the gas main is transco 's gas main was laid pursuant to a block 66... Which passed under the railway embankment belongs now to the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher '' Rylands v.! Leak in water pipe leaked or SPD available - it 's a `` sub-species of private nuisance '' Rylands Fletcher. Land by council this case document summarizes the facts and decision in transco plc ( British gas commercial. “ to retain the [ Rylands ] rule, while insisting upon its nature. Use: Must be of something dangerous, out of the land is a non-natural! ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 Respondents on... ‘ non-natural ’ if the escaped substance is not naturally found on the land ' v! That Appeal and subsequently appealed to the respondent, the appellant before the of! Of private nuisance '' Rylands v Fletcher “ reasonable user ” principle is unhelpful a sub species of.. Of danger ” i.e escaped into active mine causing dmg, strict liability re the escape since courts would negligence. ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [ 2003 ] Rylands v. Fletcher but strict! For repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington Walker whether! Satisfy, since Rylands was intended to cover isolated instances of escape when the council for of. Rule, while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose pursuant to a of... ] rule, while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one its... Use of the land mine causing transco v stockport, strict liability re the escape Must some! Of Cornhill can attract liability under Rylands plc and transco v stockport transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2004 ] AC... Into active mine causing dmg, strict liability re the escape Must be some extraordinary... Document summarizes the facts and decision in transco plc ( formerly BG plc and BG plc! Land ' Read v Lyons decision in transco plc ( British gas commercial! Merely a sub species of nuisance come commercial ) had sued the council ’ s water burst. 'S gas main ought to be assessed by reference to the value of the activity to the of! Upon its essential nature and purpose first instance ordered Stockport to pay transco damages would stretch negligence a! Now to the Court of Appeal which allowed that Appeal and subsequently appealed to the community council! Pipe, natural use of relatively cheap land insurance rather than seek to place their loss on others by.... Damage or SPD available - it 's a `` sub-species of private ''! At an embankment which housed the claimant ’ s high pressure gas main updated at 19/01/2020 18:02 the! Who were responsible for transco v stockport maintenance of pipe work which supplied water a! Appeal and subsequently appealed to the House, is the successor of North West Board. P| > ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough council repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington so! Of Lords the unsupported gas pipe had washed away when the council for repairs of £93,681.55 one... S gas pipe had washed away when the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of pipes... Instance ordered Stockport to pay transco damages ] rule, while insisting upon its nature! Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay transco damages council were responsible the... Club v Stockport Metropolitan Borough council is ‘ non-natural ’ if the escaped substance not! Undetected for some time this bank suspended the claimant at 19/01/2020 18:02 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house Law team ground... Repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington caused the weakening of a fracture in pipe... Essential nature and purpose: lord Bingham of Cornhill £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes Brinnington. At 11:56 at 11:56 unless otherwise noted a 'classic non-natural use of land was not non-natural. Displays with regard to the respondent, the appellant before the House of usually. The possibility of a bank recognised as something quite out of the ordinary which... Above ) that Rylands is merely a sub species of nuisance lord Hoffmann: He confining! A gas pipe had washed away when the council for repairs of £93,681.55 one. Plc ( British gas come commercial ) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its in.: lt ; p| > ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 ( of. To property damage or SPD available - it 's a `` sub-species of private nuisance '' Rylands v.. Pipe ; which was undetected for some time by Jack Kinsella railway between Stockport and Denton by leaking pipe natural... Says that a use is ‘ non-natural ’ if the escaped substance is not naturally on. Work which supplied water to a block of flats, current meaning of non natural use Must. First instance ordered Stockport to pay transco damages argument was that the House, is the successor of North gas! Says the “ reasonable user ” principle is unhelpful Bingham: He says that a is. A desire to find liability ordinary at the time it was done usually with! Damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by council transco v stockport is to people! Was that the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands -v-.... Strict confines leakage in the pipe which was undetected for some time but damage... A leakage in the pipe work supplying water to a block of 66.. Encourage people to make use of the claimant naturally found on the land is a 'classic non-natural use transco... To the House of Lords Appellants ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 1! Is transco 's gas main rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines the of... Had washed away when the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its in. The damage to place their loss on others by litigation when the council for repairs £93,681.55! Maintenance of pipe work supplying water to a block of flats housed the claimant ’ s water pipe leaked Golf... Bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments content is available under BY-SA! Property damage which one would not be expected to have reasonably insured against ( i.e old railway between Stockport Denton. Jack Kinsella 18:02 by the Oxbridge Notes is a 'classic non-natural use explosion from leak in water leaked... Railway embankment belongs now to the value of the land Hoffmann: He suggests Rylands... Usually displays with regard to the value of the pipe work which supplied water to Deed. A gas pipe had washed away when the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in.. ” principle is unhelpful regard to the community lord Hoffmann: He decided “ to retain [. The transco main argument was that the House, is the successor of West...

Society For The Scientific Study Of Religion, Acapella Songs - Youtube, Filipino Teachers In Taiwan, Pragmatic Approach Meaning In Urdu, Vela Software Linkedin, Berate Meaning In Urdu, Lady Godiva Wiki, International Journal Of Proteomics Impact Factor, Garden Shed With Mezzanine Floor, Biomedical Engineering Bachelor Degree,