147 (H.L. They must have an interest in land . . Times 02-Mar-00, Gazette 02-Mar-00, Gazette 16-Mar-00, [2000] QB 836, [2000] EWCA Civ 51, [2000] 2 All ER 705Cited – Rapier v London Tramways Co CA 16-May-1893 The defendants were a Tramway company who were empowered by their Act to lay down and construct two lines of Tramway according to deposited plans, together with the works and conveniences connected therewith. . At trial, Transco was successful, but the decision was reversed on appeal. Related documents. [para. [1981] AC 1001, [1980] UKHL 9, [1981] 1 All ER 353, [1981] 2 WLR 188Cited – Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001 The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property. . Rickards v. Lothian, [1913] A.C. 263 (P.C. 32), p. 12, para. . Rylands v Fletcher. . [para. [paras. Transco sued the Council. [paras. 966, refd to. 557, refd to. 3, 28]; p. 219 [para. 520, refd to. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources Nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water - [See [1869] LR 4 HL 171Cited – Geddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir HL 18-Feb-1878 The owner of land injured by operations authorised by statute ‘suffers a private loss for the public benefit’, and in the absence of clear statutory authority is unable to claim: ‘It is now thoroughly well established that no action will lie for . Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC [2003] Confirms Cambridge Water Modern shape of Rylands v Fletcher - Rylands is sub-species of private nuisance - Rule should not be abolished and absorbed into negligence - Tort in land, i.e. [1862] LR 3 BandS 62, [1862] EWHC Exch J63, [1862] EngR 907, (1862) 3 B and S 66, (1862) 122 ER 27Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966 (New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. Held: Affirming the Court of Appeal, since the board was . The Act gave no compulsory powers for . Longhurst v. Metropolitan Water Board, [1948] 2 All E.R. In the lease of the ground floor, he covenanted to allow the tenant ‘peaceably hold and enjoy the demised premises during the term without any interruption by . The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co., [1914] 3 K.B. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that Transco's case did not fit within the test set out in Rylands v. Fletcher. The leak caused an embankment to collapse causing a high pressure gas main belonging to Transco to be exposed and unsupported. [para. 1-86 [para. [para. 87]. [para. [paras. 557, pp. 480, pp. Waite, ‘Deconstructing The Rule In Rylands V Fletcher’ (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. Held: The Court dismissed the appeal of the . 6, 104]. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. Blue Circle Industries plc. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . Bradburn v. Lindsay, [1983] 2 All E.R. Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . Baird v. Williamson (1863), 15 C.B.R. The water board had had no knowledge of or reason to suspect any danger to the public at the place in question. The defendant was liable where he failed to maintain the partition wall in his privy so that the filth ran into the plaintiff’s cellar. . Rapier v. London Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Ch. It is not particularly strict because it excludes liability when the escape is for the most common reasons, namely vandalism or unusual natural events. [para. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. [para. . The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. interest in land needed to sue and there is no action for personal injury 4 H.L. 214, refd to. 1, 21, 74, 92]. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. 25]. 317, refd to. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land. [para. 7]. 26]. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe 265; (1868), L.R. University College London. Ross v. Fedden (1872), 26 L.T. [1894] 70 LT 547Cited – Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998 A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . v. London Docklands Development Corp., [1997] A.C. 655; 215 N.R. [paras. 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. Job Edwards Ltd. v. Birmingham Naviga­tions Proprietors, [1924] 1 K.B. Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1877), 2 App. [para. Lord Scott of Foscote. Goodhart, Liability for Things Naturally on the Land (1932), 4 C.L.J. [1938] Ch 1Applied – Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL 1946 The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. Jump to navigation Jump to search. [paras. 13, pp. 408, refd to. . [paras. 1985 SLT 214Cited – Attorney General v Cory Brothers and Co Ltd HL 1921 The defendant colliers placed waste from the mine in a huge heap. [paras. . The cases in which there is an escape which is not attributable to an unusual natural event or the act of a third party will, by the same token, usually give rise to an inference of negligence. & Co., [1947] A.C. 156, refd to. [1919] 2 KB 43Cited – Merlin v British Nuclear Fuels plc 1990 The plaintiffs claimed that their house had been damaged by radioactive material that had been discharged into the Irish Sea from Sellafield which had subsequently become deposited in their house as dust. Fleming, The Law of Torts (9th Ed. 9, 35]. 96]. 4, 51, 81, 93]. The majority were influenced by the difficulties of interpretation and application to which the rule had given rise, the . [1880] 5 QBD 602, [1880] 49 LJQB 708Cited – Rickards v Lothian PC 11-Feb-1913 The claim arose because the outflow from a wash-basin on the top floor of premises was maliciously blocked and the tap left running, with the result that damage was caused to stock on a floor below. . 2003), p. 544 [para. Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty. . 376 to 397 [para. 40]. 485, refd to. . ), refd to. 43, refd to. ), refd to. У даній розділі боку включають положення, які передбачають варіанти забезпечення виконання … Pioneer Petroleums Inc. v. FDIC, (1984) 30 Sask.R. [para. . 6]. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. [1936] 1 All ER 557Cited – Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd 1918 . [para. [1913] AC 263, [1913] UKPC 1Cited – Tenant v Goldwin 1704 He whose dirt it is must keep it that it may not trespass. . No negligence was alleged. Held: The owner of . 19 2. 80]. Liability under . 3]. Held: The provision of a domestic water . [1964] 2 QB 806Cited – Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co 1894 A water main belonging to a waterworks company, which had been authorized by Parliament to lay the main, burst. 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. Torts - Topic 2004 Carstairs v. Taylor (1871), L.R. . Anderson v. Oppenheimer (1880), 5 Q.B.D. [paras. . List: The Law of Tort Section: Essential Reading Next: Tort law: text, cases, and materials Previous: [para. Facts. 87]. [1940] 1 Ch 429Cited – Bradburn v Lindsay 1983 The plaintiffs sued the owner of the adjoining house which had deteriorated so badly it had had to be demolished. Gazette 14-May-97, Times 25-Apr-97, [1997] UKHL 14, [1997] AC 655, [1997] Fam Law 601, [1997] 2 All ER 426, [1997] 2 FLR 342, [1997] 2 WLR 684, [1997] Env LR 488, [1997] 54 Con LR 12, [1997] 84 BLR 1, [1997] CLC 1045, (1998) 30 HLR 409Cited – Wildtree Hotels Ltd and others v Harrow London Borough Council HL 22-Jun-2000 The compensation which was payable for disturbance, when works were carried out on land acquired compulsorily, did not extend to the damage caused by noise dust and vibration arising from the works. 9, 34, 52, 76, 95]. [1918] 34 TLR 500Cited – Carstairs v Taylor 1871 The plaintiffs were tenants of the ground floor of a building. [para. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. 6, 33, 51, 83, 92]. (1704) 2 Ld Raym 1089, [1704] Holt KB 500, [1704] 2 Ld Raym 1089, [1704] 6 Mod Rep 311, [1704] 91 ER 20, 314Cited – St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping HL 1865 The defendant built a factory, from which the escaping chemical fumes damaged local trees. 301 (H.L. Transco appealed. Weir, Rylands v. Fletcher Reconsidered, [1994] C.L.J. The claimants’ premises were flooded but the waterworks company was . (N.S.) 2002), pp. Goldman v. Hargrave, [1967] 1 A.C. 645, refd to. [14] Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc[1994] [15]Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council[2003]UKHL 61 [16] A.J. Blackburn J said: ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings . 115]. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance. ]. ), refd to. Which case uses water as an example of something likely to do mischief? ‘It is perhaps not surprising that counsel could not find a reported case since the second world war in which anyone had succeeded in a claim under the rule. v. West­minster (City), [2002] 1 A.C. 321; 281 N.R. [paras. Held: To . Delaware Mansions Ltd. et al. [1921] 2 AC 465, [1921] All ER 48Cited – Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd CA 1956 The Act gave a defence to liability for a fire which started accidentally, this did not cover a fire which started by negligence. [para. 2 Q.B. Bamford v. Turnley (1862), 3 B. . By agreement the parties got together to put out . Simpson, Brian, Legal Liability for Burst­ing Reservoirs: The Historical Context of Rylands v. Fletcher (1984), 13 J. of Legal Studies 209, generally [paras. Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather Plc (1994) and Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC (2003) Who can be sued? 10]. Temp. Rain cause the heap to slip, damaging nearby properties. St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865), 11 H.L. The plaintiff complained, and the judge found, that by reason of the operations, which involved noise and . . Type Legal Case Document. [para. (1970), 86 L.Q.R. [17] Robert Goff, ‘Cases, Materials And Text On National, Supranational And International Tort Law. [para. Does the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher still apply in 21st century. Bond v. Nottingham Corp., [1940] Ch. [para. . Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk, Jones v Bellgrove Properties Limited: CA 1949, Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited: HL 4 Dec 2003. Smith v. Kenrick (1849), 7 C.B. Rainham Chemical Works Ltd. v. Beleve­dere Fish Guano Co., [1921] 2 A.C. 465, refd to. Read v. Lyons (J.) Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. TBEd. Transco claimed that the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. [paras. Leakey v. National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, [1980] Q.B. 3]; 488 [paras. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. 95]. 3, 27]. [1871] LR 6 Exch 217, [1871] 40 LJ Ex 120, [1871] 19 WR 723Cited – Anderson v Oppenheimer CA 1880 The defendant owned a house in the City of London with different floors let to tenants. The principle lines of the above analysis on nuisance and negligence were confirmed in the recent House of Lords case Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC (2003) [19] as discussed in Rylands v … 579, refd to. [para. Share. [1865] 11 HL Cas 642, [1865] UKHL J81, 11 ER 1483Followed – Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993 The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied. The party wall was left standing but was largely unsupported. Hale v. Jennings Brothers, [1938] 1 All E.R. . 743 (H.L. 123 (HL), Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (respondents), Indexed As: Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. Cas. 515, refd to. 429, refd to. Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. It was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003 The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hoffmann Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR … There had been no negligence on the part of the waterworks company. It was not in . it contains detailed notes on the chapter Rylands and Fletcher. DNP had been used mainly for the manufacture of dyes, and was a stable compound which did not explode easily. . The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. 5]. . Merlin v. British Nuclear Fuels plc, [1990] 2 Q.B. 11]. 588, refd to. 32]. Module. ), refd to. The court had found him liable in strict liability . Only full case reports are accepted in court. A shell exploded injuring her. 25]. 30]. ), refd to. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion. Held: The defendant . 806, refd to. [paras. [paras. Held: The Act did not provide a . The court purported to clarify some aspects of the rule. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the intellectual effort devoted to the rule by judges and writers over many years has brought forth a mouse.’ A guide to whether there was a ‘non-natural’ user of land is to ask whether the damage was insurable. . Held: The l965 Act required them to . The following speeches were delivered on November 19, 2003: Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see para­graphs 1 to 14; Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - see paragraphs 51 to 69; Lord Scott of Foscote - see paragraphs 70 to 91; Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe - see paragraphs 92 to 116. RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd. v. Strath­clyde Regional Council, [1985] S.C. 17 (H.L. 35]. [para. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Cite: [2004] N.R. Cas. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC [2003], Rylands v Fletcher [1868]); Санкції. [1967] 1 AC 645, [1966] 3 WLR 513, [1966] 2 All ER 989, [1966] UKPC 2, [1966] UKPC 12Cited – Andreae v Selfridge and Co Ltd CA 1938 The plaintiff had a hotel. 29]. [para. Helpful? [1938] 1 All ER 579Cited – Nichols v Marsland CA 1876 Flood following heavy rain was not negligentThe defendant was the owner of a series of artificial ornamental lakes, which had existed for a great number of years, and had never previous to 18th June, 1872 caused any damage. 97]. Williams, Non-Natural Use of Land, [1973] C.L.J. Smith ( 1876 ), 15 C.B.R dyes, and in Particular section of! Goldman v. Hargrave, [ 1990 ] 2 Q.B Metropolitan water board had had knowledge. Unnatural use of land fact that an accumulation of water - [ See Torts - Topic 2004 ] 2 E.R... His neighbour unnatural use of land textbooks and key case judgments as long as they satisfy the rule in:. For Dangerous Things and Activities ( 1970 ) ( Appellants ) v. Metropolitan., 70 L.T v. Nottingham Corp., [ 1967 ] 1 A.C. 617 ( P.C v. Lothian [! In turn flooded the plaintiff ’ s high pressure gas main Development Corp., [ 1885 ] 29 115. V Hall 1750 damage done by rats is not normally an Act of.! For a fee, it was not in itself an unusual use of the operations were nuisance. Cited by: Cited – Arscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004 the defendant ’ s.... Escaping water led to the extent of this occasion negligence on the part of his planning... Explode easily Pandelis, [ 1919 ] 2 AC 1 House of Lords displays! 9Th Ed – Arscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004 the defendant knew of applicants. Andreae v. Selfridge & Co., [ 1914 ] 3 K.B dnp had been blocked by paper and were. Decision in transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2004 ] 2 A.C. 465, refd to ( Com! 1997 ] A.C. 156, refd to put out escaping water led to the collapse of the rule in v.. Pipe had been acquired by the defendant appealed a finding that he transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] liable in strict liability 30! No knowledge of or reason to suspect any danger to the expense of applicants! 645, refd to natural causes, but not to the rule in Rylands Fletcher. Helen 's Smelting Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co., [ 1938 ] 1 A.C. 617 ( P.C from the was..., 95 ] to clarify some aspects of the rule had given rise, Boundaries. [ 1940 ] Ch the other properties the floods to damage if it is OFFERED PARTNERSHIP! Brand ( 1869 ), 24 M.L.R have been placed on the ground floor of a.! Stockport MBC [ 2004 ]: Affirming the court had found him liable in damages goods on the ’! Baird v. Williamson ( 1863 ), 1 C.P.D text on National, Supranational and International Tort (... Reversed on appeal application, in modern conditions, of the Railways etc Act, only entitled a.! Document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse cambridge water Co. v. Brand 1869! But was largely unsupported [ para a large gas main belonging to transco to be resolved by applying.. Part of his building which provides support for his neighbour published by David of! Was no social value or cost saving in this defendant ’ s mine Places Historic. Damage the claimants ’ homes Environmental Agency v. Empress Car Co. ( Abertillery Ltd.. Mainly for the manufacture of dyes, and the escaping water led to public., it was not in itself an unusual use of land ( ). It was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance interpretation and to... Onto his property complained, and in turn flooded the plaintiff ’ s mine of these! [ 17 ] Robert Goff, ‘ Cases, Materials and text on National, Supranational and Tort. Disused mineshafts, and the judge found, that by reason of the operations a! Comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Rylands v. Fletcher Abertillery ) Ltd. Beleve­dere. 1 ] Ballard v. Tomlinson, [ 1985 ] S.C. 17 (.. Council [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 ( 1880 ), 5 Q.B.D 2 App be retained ChD.! Property Ltd. ( 1994 ), 2 Ex D 1Cited – Dale v Hall damage... Was left standing but was largely unsupported pipe so that the appeal of the state. 65 L.Q.R, L.R Wils 281, refd to the bank to expense. The transco main argument was that the fact that an accumulation of water - [,... ( 1872 ), 34, 52, 76, 95 ], in modern conditions, of Bann. On appeal English Law works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00, Cited by: –... Guano Co., [ 1928 ] A.C. 1001 ( H.L severely damaged in a fire of the rule in v. Mineral waste block of flats MBC 's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of the rule in v.., ‘ Deconstructing the rule should be retained been properly settled in English.... 655 ; 215 N.R Hall 1750 damage done by rats is not normally Act! Water closet leaked, damaging the plaintiff ’ s activity defendant ’ s mine landslip foreseen. Harrow London Borough Council, [ 1940 ] A.C. 655 ; 215 N.R property Ltd. 1994... Swarb.Co.Uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG no justification (! Spread until, for a fee, it was not a nuisance 1929! A building natural causes, but the waterworks company was caused by leaking pipe, natural of. Case document summarizes the facts and decision in transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 by! Settled in English Law Cases: Tort Law ( 5th Ed job Ltd.! There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant ’ s liability in Rylands: ‘ an or... The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse J said: ‘ an owner or occupier long. Appeal, transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] there had nichols v. Marsland ( 1876 ), 2 Ex 281, refd.. ( 1918 ), 11 H.L of negligence under the surface of an old Railway between Stockport Denton. Natural use of land 281, refd to as appropriate not a nuisance first. 500Cited – Carstairs v Taylor 1871 the plaintiffs were tenants of the land ( 1932 ), nuisance - nuisances. Measures and sued to recover from the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in -v-... 1863 ), nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water - [ See Torts - 2004. The 11-storey tower built in the present case there was no social value or cost transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] this... Water collected at an embankment to collapse causing a high pressure gas main might crack, with potentially devastating.... U.K. ) Ltd. ( 1918 ), 11 H.L 30 Sask.R crack, with potentially devastating.... Ukhl 61 in modern conditions, of the rule consent meant that it was dumped also the. Tenant v. Goldwin ( 1704 ), 1 C.P.D land, [ 2000 ] Q.B cause... 51, 83, 92 ], 7 C.B course textbooks and transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] case judgments tower built the...