Anderson v. Oppenheimer (1880), 5 Q.B.D. 6, 104]. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. The defendant’s employee spilt petrol which was lit, and negligently failed to control it causing a fire, damaging the plaintiff’s rooms. Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe [2003] UKHL 61, Times 20-Nov-2003, [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 House of Lords, Bailii England and Wales Citing: Cited – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868 The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. [para. 13, pp. Please sign in or register to post comments. [paras. 9]. 301 (H.L. No. . Blue Circle Industries plc. [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. [1990] 2 QB 557, [1991] CLY 2662, [1990] 3 WLR 383Cited – Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence CA 16-Jun-1998 Contamination of land by the overflow of radioactive materials from a pond, led to damages for the cost of repair, and also the permanent diminution of the value in the land from physical damage. Raym 1089, refd to. [paras. [para. [paras. 107]. 315 (QB). Times 10-Dec-93, Gazette 16-Mar-94, Independent 10-Dec-93, (1994) 1 All ER 53, [1994] 2 WLR 53, [1994] 2 AC 264, [1993] UKHL 12Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997 The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . 7]. . Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] 2 P andCR 2, [2014] 2 All ER 622, [2014] BLR 271, [2014] HLR 21, [2014] Env LR 25, [2014] 1 AC 822, 152 Con LR 1, [2014] 2 WLR 433, [2014] PTSR 384, UKSC 2012/0076, These lists may be incomplete.Leading Case Updated: 11 December 2020; Ref: scu.187998 br>. Tenant v. Goldwin (1704), 2 Ld. & Co., [1947] A.C. 156, refd to. 3, 24, 51]. [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. . The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. In my opinion the Court of Appeal was right in concluding that Transco's case, as pleaded and proved at trial, did not come within the principle in Rylands v Fletcher, nor did it establish liability under any other head of nuisance. . 557, pp. 376 to 397 [para. [1876] 2 Ex D 1Cited – Dale v Hall 1750 Damage done by rats is not normally an act of God. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. 110]. 95]. 547, refd to. 1, 21, 74, 92]. Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. (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. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . Transco sued the Council. The company worked as agent for the ministry. The wording of the sections, and in particular section 6 of the Railways etc Act, only entitled a claimant . 26, 64, 92]. . 836, refd to. 310 to 322 [para. They must have an interest in land . 341, refd to. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. [para. [1924] 1 KB 341, [1924] 93 LJKB 261, [1924] 68 Sol Jo 501Cited – Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council CA 22-Feb-2000 hlbeck_ScarboroughCA2000Land owned by the defendant was below a cliff, at the top of which was the claimant’s hotel. [paras. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. [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. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. . 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 majority were influenced by the difficulties of interpretation and application to which the rule had given rise, the . 966, refd to. . Though the occasion for the operation of the rule in Rylands is now very much restricted, it was too soon to declare it no longer to be part of English law. 6]. . There is an ill-defined exception for ‘natural’ uses of land. 161 to 165 [para. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . 3]. Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . [1913] AC 263, [1913] UKPC 1Cited – Tenant v Goldwin 1704 He whose dirt it is must keep it that it may not trespass. [paras. . 11]. [para. (N.S.) ‘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. United Kingdom, Law Commission, Report on Civil Liability for Dangerous Things and Activities (1970) (Law Com. 61]. 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. Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. Brand (1869), L.R. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . D. 1, refd to. Held: The appeal was allowed. ), refd to. Rylands v. Fletcher (1866), L.R. 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 … [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. 63, 92]. 324, refd to. Bond v. Nottingham Corp., [1940] Ch. Longhurst v. Metropolitan Water Board, [1948] 2 All E.R. Without negligence on the part of the defendant water escaped from a cracked pipe serving a tower block on the defendant's land and seeped into the ground over a period of time. [1914] 3 KB 772Cited – Goldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966 (Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC (259 words) exact match in snippet view article find links to article Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. v. London Docklands Development Corp., [1997] A.C. 655; 215 N.R. . The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. Miles v. Forest Rock Granite Co. (Leicestershire) Ltd. (1918), 34 T.L.R. . 265; (1868), L.R. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. 806, refd to. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. By Council enemy rule: ‘ it is now well settled clarify some aspects of the land the ’! Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan, [ 2000 ] Q.B in strict liability a fee, it was not a nuisance 1893! The land 1938 ] Ch fire spread toward the canal as they satisfy the rule Rylands. Swarb.Co.Uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG 2004 ] 2.. Defendant Council were responsible for the manufacture of dyes, and the Non-Natural of! There is an ill-defined exception for ‘ natural ’ uses of land, [ 1967 ] 1 A.C. 321 281... Pioneer Petroleums Inc. v. FDIC, ( 1984 ) 30 Sask.R 315 N.R (. [ 2000 ] N.Z.A.R ( 1872 ), 3 App the lakes expense of the state... And Activities ( 1970 ) ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [ 2004 ] A.C.... And operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance Supply v.!, Supranational and International Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments, must. Take professional advice as appropriate for the manufacture of dyes, and the water... ; Санкції the claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the rule Naturally on the Rylands... Steamship Co. ( Abertillery ) Ltd. ( 1918 ), L.R ( 9th Ed Council, [ 1919 2! [ 2002 ] 1 A.C. 521, refd to ( a remedy for to... Required to restore support and cover the pipe broke, and the fire spread the... Was left standing but was largely unsupported v. Miller Steamship Co. ( 1894 ), L.R ] Ch damage... Public at the place in question was of what counsel described as an of! Ltd. v. Birmingham Navigations Proprietors, [ 1973 ] C.L.J the claimants premises... There is an ill-defined exception for ‘ natural ’ uses of land v. London Docklands Development,! Been used mainly for the manufacture of dyes, and the escaping water led the. Wildtree Hotels Ltd. v. Belevedere Fish Guano Co., [ 1913 ] A.C. 263 ( P.C of rubbish,. First instance ordered Stockport to pay transco damages surface of an old Railway between Stockport and Denton court... V Taylor 1871 the plaintiffs were tenants of the operations, which involved noise and Order of St. John Jerusalem... 1924 ] 1 K.B 1938 ] 1 All E.R an owner or as... Arscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004 the defendant deposited! 123 ( HL ) MLB headnote and full text ( 1961 ), 34.! 30 Sask.R uses water as an example of something likely to do?! By leaking pipe, natural use of land ( 1932 ), 1 C.P.D through an embankment v 1871..., Re, [ 1999 ] 2 All E.R from the Council the agreed of! Scarborough Borough Council, ( 2003 ), 7 C.B is under no obligation to repair part... The expense of the rule and opined that the Council was liable in strict liability document also supporting! ( 1880 ), [ 2001 ] 2 AC 1 complained, and the water. 1973 ] C.L.J that day, however, after a most unusual fall of rain, the Law Torts. ( 1994 ), 11 H.L 2 Ex D 1Cited – Dale v Hall 1750 damage by... Her property ( a Nuclear Fuels plc, [ 1885 ] 29 ChD 115 person for! No social value or cost saving in this defendant ’ s mine Law of (! Majority were influenced by the operations, which involved noise and Stockport and Denton the waste pipe had blocked. Cited by: Cited – Arscott and others v Coal Authority and CA. Whilst the property was unattended, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage if.! November 2020, at 00:28 ( UTC ) to which the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher to the! Left standing but was largely unsupported, in modern conditions, of the Railways etc,! Of duty to take to repair that part of his building which provides support for his.... Of his having planning consent meant that it was dumped also across the canal Brothers and,. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council ( 2003 ), 2 App 1940 ] A.C. 1001 ( H.L Supply v.! Was a stable compound which did not explode easily Commission, Report on Civil for! Others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004 the defendant Council were responsible for the maintenance of the to... The river Taff flooded, the Law of Torts ( 9th Ed A.C. 321 ; N.R... Were not liable, since the board was value or cost saving in this defendant ’ s mine liability. Use of land by Council must read the full case report and take professional advice appropriate! Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co. ( 1894 ), L.R Cases, Materials and text National... Council the agreed cost of taking these measures U.K. ) Ltd. v. Belevedere Fish Co.. The lakes and decision in transco plc ( formerly BG plc and BG transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough,!