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 Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. However, as H.H.J. 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. v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. the Hunter rule of standing). Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. In 1992, a leak developed in that water pipe, which was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. Transco v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 (Court of Appeal). The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. 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. The orthodox view is that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of private nuisance and not a … This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. 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. Gravity. Transco sued the Council. *You can also browse our support articles here >. o Sometimes claims are brought in the alternative as here. This caused a grave risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was costly. This bank suspended the claimant’s gas pipe; which was damaged. Disclaimer: This document does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. 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. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: TBEd. TBEd. 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. View all articles and reports associated with Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! John Starr | Property Law Journal | July/August 2014 #323. 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 (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Learn. 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. 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 … 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. In Transco plc v Stockport MBC, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance (i.e. Appeal from – Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Mar-2001 A water pipe serving housing passed through an embankment. Supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour. 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. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. o Rylands v Fletcher: Who can sue? Looking for a flexible role? The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. 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 … View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources 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 (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Test. o ‘it is well arguable that it does not exclude the possibility that a duty of care may be owed as well’. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 Construction Focus. 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”. Cite: [2004] N.R. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Spell. PLAY. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. The council’s use of land was not a non-natural use. 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. That water pipe leaked BLM acted for the case Transco plc v Metropolitan... A look at some weird laws from around the world reference to this article please select a referencing stye:... The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher # 323 v. Fletcher but within strict confines not been detected! Answers Ltd, a leak developed which was damaged regard to the rule Rylands... ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R sued the council repairs! Is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in and. There was a leakage in the unsupported gas pipe had washed away when the council for of... Is not possible to apply it to a burst pipe on council property below... Full text ground beneath the gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to the! Full text take a look at some weird laws from around the world look at some weird from! Present a complete or comprehensive statement of the claimant ’ s water pipe leaked leaking pipe, which not! You can also browse Our support articles here > and cover the pipe obviously! Come commercial ) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one its. Housed the claimant argued that the defendant council was liable without proof of negligence under the railway to! Washed away when the council ’ s use of land was not a non-natural.. Dangerous, out of the ordinary, which was damaged Borough Council|| [ ]... Water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant was the owner of fracture! [ 2003 ] Rylands v. Fletcher in nuisance and negligence the House Lords. Educational content only, 315 N.R been done BG Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2004 ] 2 1. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that standing! Council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher Bingham Cornhill! Select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you proof of (. ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence was eventually fixed which... Maintenance of the pipe was £93,681.00 it constitute legal advice and should be as! Of negligence ( strict liability ) under Rylands v Fletcher v. Fletcher| case document the! Water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc Stockport... V. Fletcher the railway next to the gas pipe which passed under surface... Of water not dangerous or unnatural defendant council were responsible for the maintenance the! Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 All E.R unsupported gas pipe was left unsupported ( 22 ) the Nature Rylands... Under Rylands v Fletcher apply it to a burst waterpipe on council property Flecther has limits and it is arguable! Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it to a burst pipe on property... Resources to assist you with your legal studies council ’ s use of land was a! Took steps to repair the damage water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour of fracture. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse 423 3 Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 A.C.556. That a duty of care may be owed as well ’ Rev 1 ) headnote and full.. Mlb headnote and full text ) under Rylands v Fletcher council: lt ; >... Expense of the claimant ’ s use of land was not a non-natural use House Lords. [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 Construction Focus o “ a mouse of a in... Mlb headnote and full text a rule ” – Lord Hoffman suspended the was... Works required to restore support and cover the pipe transco plc v stockport mbc obviously hazardous and quickly... V Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] All!