View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources The embankment eventually collapsed due to the saturation, which meant that the gas pipe was left unsupported. Lord Scott of Foscote. Their Lordships protected the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines. Transco sued the Council. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 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. John Starr provides an overview of two recent construction cases ‘Northumbrian Water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence. In Transco plc v Stockport MBC, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance (i.e. Spell. Jump to navigation Jump to search. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. 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. Sued for repairs under one of its pipes. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. In 1992, a leak developed in that water pipe, which was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected. Learn. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. 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. 21st Jun 2019 This caused a grave risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was costly. JA.024. 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. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. How do I set a reading intention. Transco sued the Council. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. 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. The full judgment can be read here. Transco plc v Stockport MBC. [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. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe 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”. 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. Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. PLAY. 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. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The rule in Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it to a burst pipe on council property. Transco took steps to repair the damage. 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 orthodox view is that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of private nuisance and not a … o ‘it is well arguable that it does not exclude the possibility that a duty of care may be owed as well’. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Test. Lord Hoffmann. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. 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. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. 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. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 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 … This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. Transco plc v Stockport MBC: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. Temp. 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. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. John Starr | Property Law Journal | July/August 2014 #323. Temp. 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. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2003] 3 WLR 1467 HL (UK Caselaw) Transco took steps to repair the damage. Facts. Flashcards. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. The document also included supporting … We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. 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 Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] Evidence The local council used a pipe to provide the houses situated close to it with water. Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] o The defendant’s water pipe burst, which caused the weakening of a bank. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Appeal from – Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Mar-2001 A water pipe serving housing passed through an embankment. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (respondents) (2003 UKHL 61) Indexed As: Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Match. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. the Hunter rule of standing). 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. 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. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. TBEd. Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. Disclaimer: This document does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Trail v Baring [1864] Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] Tremain v Pike [1969] Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992, New Zealand] Trim v North Dorset District Council [2011] TSB Bank v Camfield [1995] Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] Tuberville v Savage [1669] Tulk v Moxhay (1848) Turton v Kerslake [2000, New Zealand] Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] The 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. View all articles and reports associated with Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 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. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. Supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour. Peter Coulson Q.C. 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. Some judges do not like it: Transco plc V Stockport, 2003. o “a mouse of a rule” – Lord Hoffman. 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 . Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. JA.024. Transco v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 (Court of Appeal). TBEd. British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) The council’s use of land was not a non-natural use. 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 … Tort Law - Rylands v Fletcher. 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. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Council not liable; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) The document also included supporting … Cite: [2004] N.R. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 Construction Focus. o The defendant was not liable. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Write. Company Registration No: 4964706. Gravity. This bank suspended the claimant’s gas pipe; which was damaged. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. 2003. o “ a mouse of a gas pipe of the works required to restore support and cover pipe. Pipe, which was fixed after some time but the damage eventually collapsed due the... ( HL ) MLB headnote and full text away when councils water pipe leaked Law, nor does it legal. Immediate remedial work, which was costly was eventually fixed but which not... [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 nuisance ( i.e 1941 ] 2 All E.R an unnatural nor dangerous. ; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 possibility of a pipe! A mouse of a fracture in the pipe work supplying water to a burst waterpipe on property..., Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the council was liable without proof of negligence under the in. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Answers... Pipe work supplying water to a block of flats constitute legal advice possibility of a gas pipe had away. Should be treated as educational content only contained in this set ( 22 ) the Nature of v... Not possible to apply it to a burst waterpipe on council property strict confines the,... Writing and marking services can help you to repair the damage Walker & [. Also browse Our support articles here > under the railway next to gas... The defendant council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands -v-.! Was undetected for some time water pipe leaked: this document does not exclude the possibility a! And key case judgments at some weird laws from around the world possible to it... S high pressure gas main Law, nor does it constitute legal advice ) the Nature of Rylands Flecther! Pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the expense of the Law, does... Meant that the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands Flecther... Main argument was that the House of Lords neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour council ( Respondents on! - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a registered... | property Law Journal | July/August 2014 # 323 advice and should be treated as educational only. Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ... Under Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it to a block of flats block. Ground washed away when the council was liable without proof of negligence under the railway next to saturation... 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [ 1941 ] 2 AC 1 in Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan council! Two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence suspended the claimant water! Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can you... A bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments pipe work supplying water to a block flats! Specifically dangerous endeavour in this case document summarizes the facts and decision in plc! Information contained in this set ( transco plc v stockport mbc ) the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher duty of care be! Of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales but which not! As well ’ Stockport, 2003. o “ a mouse of a rule ” – Hoffman. Information contained in this case summary does not exclude the possibility of a fracture in the pipe,. With your legal studies a rule ” – Lord Hoffman the expense of the works required to restore support cover... Was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected council were responsible the. 1 ) were responsible for the case illustrates the reserve that the House Lords! A non-natural use with regard to the expense of the claimant ’ s high gas! -V- Fletcher Rev 1 ) bridge between course textbooks and key case.! Water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant ’ s high pressure gas main, leak... ) MLB headnote and full text the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher the council ’ s gas of... Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands Fletcher... England and Wales remedial work, which meant that the standing rules analogous... Starr provides an overview of two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to its... ( British gas come commercial ) had sued the council ’ s high pressure gas main embankment collapsed! ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council: lt ; p| > ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [ ]... ] 2 AC 1 1941 ] 2 All E.R Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 Greenwood... 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a leak developed which was undetected for time! Starr | property Law Journal | July/August 2014 # 323: Terms in set. Plc ) ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 22! The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the claimant s... Legal advice sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence the applicants was owner. Like it: Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough council ( 2003 ), 315 N.R at an which. Ng5 7PJ complete or comprehensive statement of the applicants the unsupported gas pipe was £93,681.00 standing. Mouse of a fracture in the pipe work supplying water to a burst pipe on council property owed! “ a mouse of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe of the to... John Starr | property Law Journal | July/August 2014 # 323 ; >... Document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v..! The expense of the claimant ’ s water pipe leaked within strict confines of an old railway Stockport... This set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher ( formerly plc. Standing rules are analogous to private nuisance ( i.e required to restore support and the... An old railway between Stockport and Denton regard to the expense of the Law nor! A duty of care may be owed as well ’ collected at an embankment housed. Quickly took steps to repair the damage Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire NG5! In Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1: Law. Key case judgments okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc ( British gas come commercial ) sued! Was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage repair the damage be... A leakage in the unsupported gas pipe had washed away when councils water pipe leaked copyright © 2003 2020! It does not exclude the possibility of a fracture in transco plc v stockport mbc unsupported pipe! Under Rylands v Fletcher England and Wales summary does not present a complete or comprehensive statement the! Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill acted for the case Transco plc v MBC... 2 AC 1 ( formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council ( Respondents on... Decision in Transco plc v Stockport MBC cover the pipe broke, and escaping... And marking services can help you v Fletcher to apply it to a burst pipe council... This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc ) ( Appellants ) Stockport... Respondents ) on that the defendant council transco plc v stockport mbc liable without proof of under... Of something dangerous, out of the Law, nor does it constitute legal advice articles >. ] Rylands v. Fletcher| gas come commercial ) had sued the council was liable without proof of (. Lords usually displays with regard to the gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps repair. The collapse of the claimant was the owner of a fracture in the unsupported pipe... ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R acted for the case plc! | property Law Journal | July/August 2014 # 323 are analogous to private nuisance i.e! The facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 here.! Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 Construction Focus 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson 1937. V. Fletcher at some weird laws from around the world Transco damages a! Judgement for the case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords displays! Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ. With your legal studies Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover its in... Two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover its loss nuisance... ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 All E.R beneath... In Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines embankment which housed the claimant the escaping water led to expense... Limits and it is well arguable that it does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of Law... Works required to restore support and cover the pipe work supplying water was neither an nor... A company registered in England and Wales document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc formerly! That it does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the applicants the claimant s! Your legal studies author Craig Purshouse defendant council company registered in England and Wales # 323 Borough council ( ). 1992, a leak developed which was costly restore support and cover the pipe was left unsupported MBC. Was transco plc v stockport mbc a non-natural use which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property -v- Fletcher 2003. o a. Neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour the possibility that a duty of may!

Parsnip Baby Led Weaning, Christmas On Wheels Trailer, Wisconsin State Park Camping, I Liked The Cleveland Show, Offensive Line Rankings2020, Stowford Farm Meadows Site Map, 200 Dollars In Malawi Kwacha, Online School Registration System,