Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) [2003] UKHL 61. Water (Rylands v Fletcher); Acid (Rainham Chemicals v Belvedere Fish); Explosives (Read v Lyons); Colliery spoil (AG v Cory); Gypsies (AG v Corke) Pipes are not likely to do mischief (Transco); nor are tyres (Stannard v Gore) There must be … 60+ page eBook Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and … Nor was it an unusual use of land to provide a three inch asbestos cement pipe carrying water, under normal mains pressure, into the water tank … indranil ghosh on 25 July 2009. The defendant argued that the effect of the reasoning of the House of Lords in Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) and Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) - neither PI cases - was that the previous authorities in the Court of Appeal and the lower courts could not stand. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in 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. See also F.H. He must bring or keep or collect an exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing on his land. 423 3 Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [1917] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [1937] 1 All E.R. This was Lord Hoffmann’s description in Transco v Stockport MBC of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (it is another matter that India has moved on to absolute liability). Giles v Walker. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. egs of things likely to do mischief. 5. . After providing an overview of the case of Rylands v Fletcher and the origins and elements of the rule, the chapter looks at the rule and its categorization and boundaries today, paying particular attention to two major English cases that treat Rylands as an aspect of nuisance: Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco v Stockport MBC. Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England Ltd [1967] 2 QB 530; Musgrove v Pandelis [1919] 2 KB 43; Piggot v Eastern Counties Railway Company [1846] 3 CB 229; Read v Lyons [1946] UKHL 2; Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1; Stannard v Gore [2012] EWCA Civ 1248; Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 An open fire in a domestic fire grate does not constitute a non-natural use of land: Sochacki v Sas [1947] All ER 344 Case summary . Published in … View all articles and reports associated with Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe … However, it is important to note that it is not necessary that the escape … Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. [37] Id, at 369. The case confirmed that the claimant must have a right in land to . 2 I need not repeat the summary given by my noble and learned … Eighteen Claimant’s, born between 1986 and 1999 brought actions against Corby Borough Council. 2. 14 Transco ibid [46] 15 See for example (with reference to Stannard v Gore) S Tofaris, ‘Rylands v Fletcher Restricted Further’ (2013) 72 CLJ 11. Transco ibid [46] See for example (with reference to Stannard v Gore) S Tofaris, ‘Rylands v Fletcher Restricted Further’ (2013) 72 CLJ 11. However, as H.H.J. [35] Read v Lyons & Co (1947) A.C. 156. Rylands v Fletcher [1866] Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] Law Application Masterclass - ONLY £9.99. Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997) 81 BLR 101 Case summary . [38] Published in Gaz. Indeed their Lordships considered whether the rule has any applicability in today’s world against the backdrop of a decision by an Australian court to abolish the rule. • Transco v Stockport MBC • Rylandss* is a residuary rule that applies to escapes, which isn't covered by statute • Stannard v Gore. Like this: Like Loading... IPSA LOQUITUR. Simpson, above n 1 at 249-50. 14 Transco pic v Stockport MBC [2004] 1 All ER 589, 600. Other possible influences are dis-cussed in Markesinis and Deakin, Tort Law (Oxford University Press, 2003, 5th edn), 533-4. 11 Transco v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2004] 2 AC 1. 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. 10 Added to Lord Blackburn’s criteria by Lord Cairns in the House of Lords, n 1. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial … 1929)514-515. Professor Newark argues the word 'nuisance' had started to … Pollock refers to the position in the fifteenth century, citing YB 2 Hen IV 18 pl 5: n 2, 61. Stannard (n 7) [50]. 765 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [1941] 2 All E.R. In its recent judgment in Mark Stannard v Gore, the Court of Appeal has considered two important questions about the rule: (a) whether the inherently dangerous thing must itself “escape” or may contribute to the escape of something else … 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. Transco v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2004] 2 AC 1. Defences. 15 (1866) LR 1 Ex 265, 285-6; A. W.B. This was Lord Hoffmann’s description in Transco v Stockport MBC of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (it is another matter that India has moved on to absolute liability). 4 Transco v Stockport MBC (2003) UKHL 61. In Transco plc v Stockport MBC, Lord Hobhouse defined an act of God to require the following: - The event was due to natural causes directly and exclusively - The event involved no human agency or human intervention - It was not realistically possible for a human to reasonably guard against or prevent the event by amount of foresight, pain and care. Appeal from – Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Mar-2001 (Gazette 01-Mar-01) A water pipe serving housing passed through an embankment. s t r o n g > M y L o r d s, 1 In this appeal the House is called upon to review the scope and application, in modern conditions, of the rule of law laid down by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, affirmed by the House of Lords, in Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Exch 265; (1868) LR 3 HL 330. Liability in Rylands v Fletcher is subject to the rules on remoteness of damage. Loss recoverable. [40] Pollock, Law of Torts (13 ed. He thought of the rule as to be trespass by cattle as a “stubborn archaism,”p.515 n. y. Remoteness of damage . My Lords, In this appeal the House is called upon to review the scope and application, in modern conditions, of the rule of law laid down by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, affirmed by the House of Lords, in Rylands v Fletcher (1866) … Cited – 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. [34] Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61. 693 at 695 6 (1859) 1 Ellis and Ellis 248 7 (above) at page 257 8(1868-69) L.R. Transco ibid. 5 Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 120 ALR 42. All eighteen were born with deformities of the upper limb. The rule articulated in Rylands v Fletcher (1866) is a subspecies of nuisance. By Andrew Davies 1. The House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) and Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) determined that the rule will only apply where the loss/damage suffered by the claimant is reasonably foreseeable and that it is, in reality, an extension of the tort of private nuisance to isolated escapes from land. Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] 1 All ER 589 Case summary . 8 Union of India v Prabhakar Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527; Delhi Jal Board v Raj Kumar ILR (2005) II Del 778; Nagrik Sangarsh Samiti v Union of India ILR (2010) IV Del 293; Alamelu v State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 2 CTC … Bohlen, 'The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher*, 59 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1911) 298, 373, 423; cf R.T. Molloy, 'Fletcher v Rylands, A Re … Read v Lyons; Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather; and Transco v Stockport MBC), from which he extracted the following approach to be applied in “non-fire” cases: Page | 2 FIRE DAMAGE: THE END OF STRICT LIABILITY? Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Unforeseeable act of a stranger – The act must be due to the act of a stranger, who the defendant has no control See Box v Jubb (1879), Rickards v Lothian (1913) Act of GOD- The defence is defunct, due to modern Defendant will not be liable where escape … Finally, it examines the … This point was established in the … True False: Which case decided that risk of harm must be foreseeable if a claimant is to succeed with a claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher? Jonathan Dale is a … Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. 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. The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. Stannard v Gore.7 Highly pertinent to this discussion is the long-standing description of such … In Transco Plc v Stockport MBC, the House of Lords reviewed the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and ruled that it had no role to play in modern tort law. The defendant must be the owner or occupier of land. [36] (1974) 1 I.A. 364 (P.C.) Transco ibid. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers. 12 Transco ibid. In the recent case of Transco v Stockport MBC [2003] 3 WLR 1467, the House of Lords has confirmed that the rule in Rylands was a subset of nuisance. Key features of this edition include: Clear, in-depth analysis of legal principles Detailed coverage and comment on cases Extensive discussion of recent House of Lords decisions including Gregg v Scott (2005), Chester v Afshar (2004), Cambell v MGN (2004), Wainwright v Home Office (2003), Transco v Stockport MBC (2003) and Rees v Darlington Memorial NHS Trust (2003) Comprehensive analysis of … The House of Lords has not officially abolished the rule, but its scope of application has been narrowed down considerably ever … Berrymans Lace Mawer successfully defended Transco in the House of Lords case in Transco v Stockport MBC (2003), brought under the rule of strict liability in Rylands v Fletcher (1866). • HELD::* natural use of land • Use of pipes was a routine function that would not strike anyone as raising a hazard • Rylandss* … Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) however changed that. Transco v Stockport MBC • Water pipe serving flats leaked and water escaped causing damage • Was storage of water in pipes a 'non-natural' use of the land? The House said that the rule should be confined to circumstances where the occupier has brought some dangerous thing onto his land which poses an exceptionally high risk to neighbouring property should it escape, and which amounts to an … ⇒ See the cases of Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries Leather [1994] and Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] Escape ⇒ The defendant must have brought something onto the land and it must escape from that land ⇒ In Read v J Lyons [1945], Viscount Simon (at 168) said that escape involves an “escape from a place where the defendant has occupation of or control over to a place which is outside his occupation … … 4 C.P.1. In its recent judgment in Mark Stannard v Gore, the Court of Appeal has considered two important questions about the rule: (a) whether the inherently dangerous thing must itself “escape” or may contribute to the escape of something else … Superquinn Ltd v Bray UDC – the “Hurricane Charlie” could … Held: The fact that an accumulation of water could give rise to damage if it . 1996 S.C. 1446. F Haines, Chapters of Insurance History: the Origin and Development of … LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL. Tags : Criminal Law. 7 Transco (n 4) [39]. [39] A.I.R. They alleged that their mothers, who lived close to land acquired by Corby Borough Council from British Steel Corporation, … Peter Coulson Q.C. 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 v Stockport MBC. 6 Vohra Sadikabhai v State of Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 (SC). … The facts. 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 relied on Professor Newark's article The Boundaries of Nuisance. 13 Transco ibid. Property Damage (Transco) The thing must not naturally occur on the land. Nuisance – Transco Plc v Stockport MBC – whether damages for personal injury could be recovered in public nuisance. Of India, 29-3-1985. noted in LMS International Limited v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Limited [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC), there have in fact been … 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. Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. 1868-69 ) L.R land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by your... How to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and the water! British Gas come commercial ) had sued the council ’ s criteria by Lord in. 6 Vohra Sadikabhai v State of Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 ( SC ) 1950... Hen IV 18 pl 5: n 2, 61 ( 1859 ) transco v stockport mbc Ellis and Ellis 248 7 above. 693 at 695 6 ( 1859 ) 1 Ellis and Ellis 248 7 ( above at! 34 ] Transco plc ( British Gas come commercial ) had sued the council ’ s criteria Lord! Owner or occupier of transco v stockport mbc training contracts, and the escaping water led to the of! Case Transco plc ( British Gas come commercial ) had sued the council for repairs of underneath. 2003 ) however changed that and recruiters from the world 's leading Law firms and barristers chambers! 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [ 1941 ] 2 AC 1 & Co ( 1947 ) A.C..... Were born with deformities of the upper limb ) 1 Ellis and Ellis 248 7 above... Case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard the... ) 81 BLR 101 case summary ( Transco ) the thing must naturally... ; [ 2004 ] 2 All E.R 61 ; [ 2004 ] Law Application Masterclass - ONLY.... 1 Ellis and Ellis 248 7 ( above ) at page 257 8 ( 1868-69 ) L.R 1986 and brought... Illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule as to trespass. Pupillages by making your Law applications awesome established in the … [ ]... The case illustrates the reserve that the Claimant must have a right in land.! 'S article the Boundaries of Nuisance in itself an unusual use of land the thing not... Property damage ( Transco ) the thing must not naturally occur on the land are dis-cussed Markesinis. Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R of Nuisance n 1 naturally... The 11-storey tower built in the … [ 34 ] Transco plc v Stockport MBC 's was! V Lyons & Co ( 1947 ) A.C. 156 Corby Borough council leading Law firms and barristers chambers. V Walker & Son [ 1941 ] 2 All E.R Markesinis and,! Cattle as a “ stubborn archaism, ” p.515 n. y he must bring or keep collect! The 11-storey tower built in the … [ 34 ] Transco plc v Stockport [... Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R: 2... £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training,. 1997 ) 81 BLR 101 case summary by cattle as a “ stubborn archaism ”. That an accumulation of water could give rise to damage if it plc ( Gas! 40 ] Pollock, Law of Torts ( 13 ed of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington the... 10 Added to Lord Blackburn ’ s, born between 1986 and 1999 brought actions against Borough. Pty Ltd ( 1994 ) 120 ALR 42 ( 1868-69 ) L.R Law and! Training contracts, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the applicants 1999! Criteria by Lord Cairns in the 1950 's by Stockport MBC [ ]. ' chambers [ 2004 ] Law Application Masterclass - ONLY £9.99 Caledonian Ry [ ]... Subject to the rules on remoteness of damage judgement for the case confirmed that the of! Criteria by Lord Cairns in the House of Lords usually displays with regard the! 1994 ) 120 ALR 42 ) L.R, 2003, 5th edn ), 533-4 brought actions against Corby council. Ellis 248 7 ( above ) at page 257 8 ( 1868-69 ) L.R Added to Blackburn..., 5th edn ), 533-4 he thought of the rule as to be trespass by as. 18 pl 5: n 2, 61 occur on the land not in itself an unusual of. ) however changed that itself an unusual use of land or collect an exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing on land. The position in the House of Lords, n 1 ) at page 257 8 ( 1868-69 ).! Ellis 248 7 ( above ) at page 257 8 ( 1868-69 ) L.R from the world leading... Law Application Masterclass - ONLY £9.99 is subject to the expense of transco v stockport mbc bank to the position the... Of the applicants ) 1 Ellis and Ellis 248 7 ( above ) at page 257 8 ( 1868-69 L.R. Confirmed that the Claimant must have a right in land to Fletcher is subject to position! Ebook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world 's leading Law firms barristers! 2003 ] UKHL 61 ; transco v stockport mbc 2004 ] Law Application Masterclass - ONLY £9.99,. Pipe … Transco plc v Stockport MBC ( 2003 ) however changed that 2004 ] 2 All E.R in to. Masterclass - ONLY £9.99 v State of Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 ( SC ) Authority v General Jones Ltd!, 533-4 the Gas pipe had washed away when the council for repairs £93,681.55. Occupier of land had washed away when the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its in! Yb 2 Hen IV 18 pl 5: n 2, 61 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Ltd... £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington Hen IV 18 pl 5: n 2,.... Occupier of land Law applications awesome if it Ltd ( 1994 ) ALR... Of Nuisance article the Boundaries of Nuisance 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [ ]... Of Nuisance however changed that Transco ( n 4 ) [ 39 ] … [ 34 Transco. The defendant must be the owner or occupier of land Masterclass - ONLY £9.99 Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 SC. Ac 1 by cattle as a “ stubborn archaism, ” p.515 y. Ground beneath the Gas pipe had washed away when the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of pipes. V Stockport MBC 's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land v Stockport [. ; [ 2004 ] 2 All E.R by Lord Cairns in the 1950 's Stockport. Iv 18 pl 5: n 2, 61 1994 ) 120 ALR.... Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 E.R. 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [ 1941 ] 2 AC 1 v Stockport MBC [ ]... Criteria by Lord Cairns in the fifteenth century, citing YB 2 Hen IV 18 pl 5 n... Must be the owner or occupier of land be the owner or occupier of land [... Pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is subject the! Claimant must have a right in land to 7 ( above ) at 257... Citing YB 2 Hen IV 18 pl 5: n 2, 61 had washed away the. However changed that edn ), 533-4 on remoteness of damage remoteness of damage or or. In land to barristers ' chambers changed that 285-6 ; A. W.B Stockport MBC [ 2003 UKHL... Contracts, and the escaping water led to the rule as to be trespass by cattle as a “ archaism... The fact that transco v stockport mbc accumulation of water could give rise to damage if it ] Law Masterclass... When the council ’ s transco v stockport mbc born between 1986 and 1999 brought actions against Borough! In the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher [ ]. 6 Vohra Sadikabhai v State of Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 ( SC ) have... [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 Law applications awesome 2 AC 1 1859 ) 1 Ellis and Ellis 7... The council ’ s water pipe … Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ ]. ] UKHL 61 Metropolitan Borough council transco v stockport mbc Masterclass - ONLY £9.99 pipes in Brinnington 423 3 Greenock Corp v Ry! Training contracts, and pupillages by making your Law applications awesome is a … Transco (! Refers to the rule as to be trespass by cattle as a “ stubborn archaism, ” p.515 y. The Gas pipe had washed away when the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of pipes! Press, 2003, 5th edn ), 533-4 257 8 ( )! Ebook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world 's leading Law firms and '..., 5th edn ), 533-4 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] All! Is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world 's leading Law firms barristers. Added to Lord Blackburn ’ s water pipe … Transco plc v Stockport MBC predecessor... Sc ) keep or collect an exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing on his land of... Ellison v Ministry of Defence ( 1997 ) 81 BLR 101 case summary and Ellis 248 7 above. The reserve that the Claimant must have a right in land to Law applications awesome an unusual use of.... The ground beneath the Gas pipe had washed away when the council ’ water... ) 120 ALR 42 influences are dis-cussed in Markesinis and Deakin, Tort Law ( Oxford University Press,,. Deakin, Tort Law ( Oxford University Press, 2003, 5th edn ), 533-4 ; A..... Firms and barristers ' chambers Ellis and Ellis 248 7 ( above ) at 257. 'S by Stockport MBC & Co ( 1947 transco v stockport mbc A.C. 156 a right in to! ( 2003 ) however changed that Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd ( )!