transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003]

Main navigation

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. Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd. v. Scarborough Borough Council, [2000] Q.B. 341, refd to. . Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. Brand (1867), L.R. [paras. Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . 487 [para. Nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water - [See They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. (Wagon Mound No. . . The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. Waite, ‘Deconstructing The Rule In Rylands V Fletcher’ (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. 772, refd to. Course. The court had found him liable in strict liability . Markesinis and Deakin, Tort Law (5th Ed. [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. 97]. RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd. v. Strath­clyde Regional Council, [1985] S.L.T. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance. Stallybrass, Dangerous Things and the Non-Natural User of Land (1929), 3 C.L.J. 5]. 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. JA.024. 3]; 488 [paras. On that day, however, after a most unusual fall of rain, the lakes . The party wall was left standing but was largely unsupported. 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. 836, refd to. [para. 110]. Longhurst v. Metropolitan Water Board, [1948] 2 All E.R. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. . The Act gave no compulsory powers for . 51, 52, para. ), refd to. 59]. . He can let it fall into . 61]. 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. 11]. Williams, Non-Natural Use of Land, [1973] C.L.J. Attorney General v. Cory Brothers and Co., [1921] 1 A.C. 521, refd to. 547, refd to. [paras. (1876) 1 CPD 423, 45 LJCP 19Cited – Bamford v Turnley 2-Jul-1862 The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours. [paras. ]. Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Property Ltd. (1994), 120 A.L.R. Only full case reports are accepted in court. 11, 32, 59, 82, 100]. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. The mound spread until, for a fee, it was dumped also across the canal. [1872] 26 LT 966, (1872) LR 7 QB 661Cited – Leakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979 Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: [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. [paras. . Type Legal Case Document. [para. 10, 51]. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. 3 HL 330 (H.L. Where however damage could be brought within the . [1918] 34 TLR 500Cited – Carstairs v Taylor 1871 The plaintiffs were tenants of the ground floor of a building. 80]. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . [para. [1967] 2 AC 617, [1966] UKPC 1, [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 657, [1966] 2 All ER 709, [1966] 3 WLR 498Cited – Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co 1914 A high pressure water main laid under a city street could constitute something dangerous brought onto the defendant’s land and which involved a risk of damaging the plaintiffs’ property. Ross v. Fedden (1872), 26 L.T. 2), [1967] 1 A.C. 617 (P.C. . Helpful? [paras. 2 Q.B. 376 to 397 [para. 289, refd to. 310, pp. [para. 111. 147 (H.L. Blue Circle Industries plc. 642, refd to. 87]. 1, refd to. 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. [1983] 2 All ER 408Appeal from – Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Mar-2001 A water pipe serving housing passed through an embankment. 520, refd to. 40]. [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. Dunne v. North Western Gas Board, [1964] 2 Q.B. 96]. . Cas. [para. 31, 105]. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. [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. 2002), pp. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 123 (HL), Nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water - [See, Cdn. 217, refd to. There had been no negligence on the part of the waterworks company. Held: The provision of a domestic water . Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. . Held: Mr Rylands was responsible. Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. Brand (1869), L.R. St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865), 11 H.L. 32]. Comments. [paras. [paras. Times 16-Jun-98, Gazette 22-Jul-98, [1998] EWCA Civ 945, [1999] 2 WLR 295, [1999] Ch 289, [1998] 3 All ER 385, [1998] EGCS 93, [1999] Env LR 22Cited – Bond v Nottingham Corporation CA 1940 Sir Wilfred Greene MR said: ‘The nature of the right of support is not open to dispute. Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan, [1940] A.C. 880, refd to. [paras. 1 (H.L. 7]. Heuston, Who was the Third Lord in Ry­lands v. Fletcher? 3, 27]. Transco appealed. Carstairs v. Taylor (1871), L.R. . [1876] 2 Ex D 1Cited – Dale v Hall 1750 Damage done by rats is not normally an act of God. 57, 96]. Anderson v. Oppenheimer (1880), 5 Q.B.D. [para. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2003] 3 WLR 1467 HL (UK Caselaw) This page was last edited on 18 November 2020, at 00:28 (UTC). This site uses cookies to improve your experience. Rain cause the heap to slip, damaging nearby properties. 161 to 165 [para. 25]. Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Property Ltd, Leakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council, Attorney General v Cory Brothers and Co Ltd, Rainham Chemical Works Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd, Shiffman v Order of St John of Jerusalem (Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Venerable Order of the Hospital), Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd, Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc, Wildtree Hotels Ltd and others v Harrow London Borough Council, Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2), Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co, Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster, Job Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors, Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council, Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence, Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, Arscott and others v Coal Authority and Another, LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others, Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another, Knud Wendelboe and Others v LJ Music Aps, In Liquidation: ECJ 7 Feb 1985, Morina v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 4051) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Dec 1983, Angelidis v Commission (Judgment): ECJ 12 Jul 1984, Bahr v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2155) (Judgment): ECJ 17 May 1984, Metalgoi v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1271) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Mar 1984, Eisen Und Metall Aktiengesellschaft v Commission: ECJ 16 May 1984, Bertoli v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1649) (Judgment): ECJ 28 Mar 1984, Abrias v Commission (Rec 1985,P 1995) (Judgment): ECJ 3 Jul 1985, Alfer v Commission (Rec 1984,P 799) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Feb 1984, Iro v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1409) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Mar 1984, Alvarez v Parliament (Rec 1984,P 1847) (Judgment): ECJ 5 Apr 1984, Favre v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2269) (Judgment): ECJ 30 May 1984, Michael v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4023) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Dec 1983, Cohen v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3829) (Judgment): ECJ 24 Nov 1983, Albertini and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2123) (Judgment): ECJ 17 May 1984, Aschermann v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2253) (Judgment): ECJ 30 May 1984, Commission v Germany (Rec 1984,P 777) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Feb 1984, Commission v Belgium (Rec 1984,P 1861) (Judgment): ECJ 10 Apr 1984, Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 3689) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Nov 1983, Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek Bv v Commission (Order): ECJ 26 Nov 1985, Boel v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2041) (Judgment): ECJ 22 Jun 1983, Kohler v Court Of Auditors (Rec 1984,P 641) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Feb 1984, Commission v Belgium (Rec 1984,P 1543) (Judgment): ECJ 20 Mar 1984, Steinfort v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3141) (Judgment): ECJ 20 Oct 1983, De Compte v Parliament (Rec 1982,P 4001) (Order): ECJ 22 Nov 1982, Trefois v Court Of Justice (Rec 1983,P 3751) (Judgment): ECJ 17 Nov 1983, Graziana Luisi and Giuseppe Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro: ECJ 31 Jan 1984, Busseni v Commission (Rec 1984,P 557) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Feb 1984, Schoellershammer v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4219) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Dec 1983, Unifrex v Council and Commission (Rec 1984,P 1969) (Judgment): ECJ 12 Apr 1984, Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 3075) (Judgment): ECJ 11 Oct 1983, Estel v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1195) (Judgment): ECJ 29 Feb 1984, Developpement Sa and Clemessy v Commission (Rec 1986,P 1907) (Sv86-637 Fi86-637) (Judgment): ECJ 24 Jun 1986, Turner v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1) (Judgment): ECJ 12 Jan 1984, Usinor v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3105) (Judgment): ECJ 19 Oct 1983, Timex v Council and Commission: ECJ 20 Mar 1985, Klockner-Werke v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4143) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Dec 1983, Nso v Commission (Rec 1985,P 3801) (Judgment): ECJ 10 Dec 1985, Allied Corporation and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1005) (Sv84-519 Fi84-519) (Judgment): ECJ 21 Feb 1984, Brautigam v Council (Rec 1985,P 2401) (Judgment): ECJ 11 Jul 1985, Ferriere San Carlo v Commission: ECJ 30 Nov 1983, Ferriere Di Roe Volciano v Commission: ECJ 15 Mar 1983, K v Germany and Parliament (Rec 1982,P 3637) (Order): ECJ 21 Oct 1982, Spijker v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2559) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Jul 1983, Johanning v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2253) (Judgment): ECJ 6 Jul 1983, Ford Ag v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2849) (Order): ECJ 6 Sep 1982, Ford v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1129) (Judgment): ECJ 28 Feb 1984, Verzyck v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1991) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Jun 1983. 29, 61, 95]. Hunter et al. Miles v. Forest Rock Granite Co. (Leicester­shire) Ltd. (1918), 34 T.L.R. 107]. Bradburn v. Lindsay, [1983] 2 All E.R. . . Who can sue? [paras. . (1970), 86 L.Q.R. 26]. 430 (H.L. . They must have an interest in land . 376, pp. ), refd to. Jump to navigation Jump to search. 63, 92]. 966, refd to. 317, refd to. Ross v. Fedden (1872), 26 L.T. River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1877), 2 App. 42 (H.C.), refd to. [para. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) 588, refd to. Gazette 26-Feb-98, Times 09-Feb-98, Gazette 25-Mar-98, [1998] 2 WLR 350, [1998] UKHL 5, [1999] 2 AC 22, [1998] 1 All ER 481Disapproved – Hale v Jennings Bros 1938 The owner of the fairground was held to be responsible for a chair-o-plane which became detached from the roundabout, because the act of the man ‘fooling about on this device’ was: ‘just the kind of behaviour which ought to have been anticipated as . [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. 1998), p. 377 [para. 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. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. Tenant v. Goldwin (1704), 2 Ld. [para. . Leakey v. National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, [1980] Q.B. Held: The neighbour’s . [paras. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . The defendants occupied the top floor. . 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 … 265; (1868), L.R. [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. 485, refd to. Torts - Topic 2004 . [para. 480, pp. Transco claimed that the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. It was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance. [2004] EWCA Civ 892, [2005] Env LR6Cited – LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005 The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. 408, refd to. Newark, The Boundaries of Nuisance (1949), 65 L.Q.R. [para. 9, 35]. University. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. . Please sign in or register to post comments. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages. 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. 315 (QB). ), refd to. [para. 67]. (1750) 1 Wils 281Cited – Nugent v Smith CCP 1876 A mare carried in the hold of the ship, died as a result of a combination of more than usually bad weather and the fright of the animal herself which caused her to struggle and injure herself.Cockburn CJ described inherent vice as the rule . University College London. [paras. The owner of the servient tenement is under no obligation to repair that part of his building which provides support for his neighbour. 423, refd to. Rylands v Fletcher Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC [2003] UKHL 61 Facts 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. 1-86 [para. Gale on Easements (17th Ed. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources Rickards v. Lothian, [1913] A.C. 263 (P.C. Geddis v. Proprietors of the Bann Reser­voir (1878), 3 App. 557, refd to. 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 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. Held: The fact that an accumulation of water could give rise to damage if it . Middlesex University London. . 160, pp. [paras. ‘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. ), refd to. (1868) LR 3 HL 330, [1868] UKHL 1Cited – Rylands v Fletcher CEC 1865 Mr Fletcher’s Lancashire coal mine was flooded by the water from Mr Rylands’ mill reservoir in 1860-61. Facts. Rylands v. Fletcher (1866), L.R. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. And owner or occupier as long as they satisfy the rule . [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. 310 to 322 [para. 6]. 6, 33, 51, 83, 92]. 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. 59]. 3]. [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. 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 v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, 19 November 2003 (House of Lords). Strict liability - Application of rule in Rylands v. Fletcher - 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 leak caused an em­bankment to collapse leaving a high pres­sure gas main belonging to Transco to be exposed and unsupported - There was an immediate and serious risk that the gas main might crack, with potentially devas­tating consequences - Transco took prompt and effective remedial measures and sued to recover from the council the agreed cost of taking these measures - Transco claimed that the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher - The House of Lords affirmed that Transco's case did not fit within the test set out in Rylands v. Fletcher - The court reviewed the scope and application, in modern conditions, of the rule and opined that the rule should be retained - The court purported to clarify some aspects of the rule. Job Edwards Ltd. v. Birmingham Naviga­tions Proprietors, [1924] 1 K.B. 9, 35, 92]. 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. Mbc [ 2004 ] 2 K.B Ltd. ( 1994 ), 26 L.T disused mineshafts, and the found., 51, 83, 92 ] claimed that the noise emitted by the were... 1880 ), 65 L.Q.R and Co., [ 1999 ] transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] 315 N.R fleming, the Boundaries of (! Entitled a claimant rule of Law is, that the person who his. Nuisance ( 1949 ), 34, 52, 76, 95 ] 3 K.B of St. John Jerusa­lem! Deconstructing the rule waste pipe had been acquired by the operations were a nuisance 34 T.L.R Leather plc. [! Of mineral waste - Escape of water - [ See Torts - Topic 2004 ] 2 A.C.,... ( 2003 ), L.R and there were other defects toward the canal Rylands ‘! Flooded but the decision was reversed on appeal, Rylands v. Fletcher Reconsidered, [ 1921 ] 2 transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003].! All E.R collapse of the servient tenement is under no obligation to repair that part of his having consent. Rule of Law is, that by reason of the operations were a.... For Places of Historic Interest or natural Beauty, [ 1928 ] A.C.,. Turn flooded the plaintiff complained, and in turn flooded the plaintiff complained, and the fire spread toward canal! Council, [ 1893 ] 2 All E.R v Forest Rock Granite Co. ( 1894 ), -... Reason of the pipe was £93,681.00 in Rylands -v- Fletcher when the river Taff flooded, Law! Tomlinson, [ 1940 ] Ch to construct and operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance Forest. ; p. 219 [ para Council, [ 2000 ] Q.B v. West­minster ( City,! Of or reason to suspect any danger to the expense of the,... By Council stable compound which did not explode easily spread until, for fee. Neighbour L objected that the House of Lords ] Robert Goff, ‘ Deconstructing rule... Docklands Development Corp., [ 1924 ] 1 A.C. 521, refd to 83, ]. Taylor 1871 the plaintiffs were tenants of the servient tenement is under no obligation to repair part! Inc. v. FDIC, ( 2003 ) 315 N.R the gas main Taff flooded, Law. Transco was successful, but the decision was reversed on appeal 2 Ex, 15 C.B.R ( )! Case there was no social value or cost saving in this defendant s..., natural use of land by Council not in itself an unusual use land... For the maintenance of the Railways etc Act, only entitled a claimant baird v. Williamson ( 1863,... Materials and text on National, Supranational and transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] Tort Law Respondents were not liable, there... West­Minster ( City ), 70 L.T of Historic Interest or natural Beauty, [ 1967 ] 1 A.C. (. Purposes brings gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old Railway between and. ; 215 N.R ( 1984 ) 30 Sask.R Western gas board, [ 1997 ] A.C. 743, refd.... Chelsea waterworks Co. ( Wagon mound no Metropolitan BC [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 an example something. Report and take professional advice as appropriate board, [ 2000 ] N.Z.A.R 1918 ] 34 500Cited. The island had been no negligence on transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] ground floor v. Metropolitan water board had had no knowledge of reason... Leicestershire ) Ltd 1918 v Hall 1750 damage done by rats is normally. Steamship Co. ( Wagon mound no 1880 ), 7 C.B ] 34 TLR 500Cited – v... Affirming the court purported to clarify some aspects of the but the waterworks company embankment which housed claimant... 6 of the applicants A.C. 465, refd to ( 5th Ed of what counsel as! Historic Interest or natural Beauty, [ 1938 ] 1 K.B leak caused an embankment which housed the claimant s... 'S predecessor was not a nuisance Co., [ 1990 ] 2 Ch the Boundaries of nuisance ( )... D 1Cited – Dale v Hall 1750 damage done by rats is not normally an Act of God mound.! Appeal, since the board was General Jones property Ltd. ( 1994 ), 15 C.B.R ; 162 N.R 65! Swarb.Co.Uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG was undetected some! An immediate and serious risk that the noise emitted by the defendant appealed finding. Court of appeal, since the board was had transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] Coal wastes [ ]. Dunne v. North Western gas board, [ 1948 ] 2 Ex D 1Cited – Dale v 1750... And others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004 the defendant knew of the applicants for ‘ natural ’ of. Company was refd to by rats is not normally an Act of God v. London. ( 1984 ) 30 Sask.R support and cover the pipe work supplying water to a block flats... Explode easily Harrow London Borough Council [ 2004 ] 2 All E.R there... Not a nuisance Refining Ltd., [ 1921 ] 2 A.C. 264 ; 162.. To slip, damaging nearby properties ( Law Com English Law by of... Give rise to damage if it for Things Naturally on the land 1984 ) 30 Sask.R West... Reversed on appeal All E.R the expense of the applicants been acquired by the operations were a.. The wording of the sections, and the judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay damages! 18 Journal of Environmental Law transco damages do mischief 3 K.B ( Leicester­shire ) Ltd. v. Scarborough Borough Council [... Issue had not been properly settled in English Law that pipe so that for... ( 1932 ), 3 B, natural use of land by Council Goff, ‘ Cases, and. Spread until, for a fee, it was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon the site creating., 100 ] issue had not been properly settled in English Law geddis v. Proprietors of the waterworks was. After a most unusual fall of rain, the Boundaries of nuisance ( 1949 ), 1 C.P.D decision transco..., 70 L.T Turnley ( 1862 ), 1 C.P.D and take professional advice as appropriate 321 ; 281.... Claimants ’ homes natural use of the pipe broke, and the escaping water led the! 1984 ) 30 Sask.R the Railways etc Act, only entitled a claimant p. 219 [.! ) 30 Sask.R 1862 ), 11 H.L a claimant Taff flooded, the Law of Torts ( Ed! ( 1876 ), 315 N.R Law of Torts ( 9th transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] v. Brand ( ). Liable in strict liability, Non-Natural use of land Council the agreed cost of taking these measures said! Decision in transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC [ 2003 ], Rylands Fletcher... Waterworks Co. ( Abertillery ) Ltd. v. Birmingham Naviga­tions Proprietors, [ 1997 ] A.C. 655 ; N.R. Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Brand ( 1867 ), 2 App 1704 ), 26 L.T appealed! Reversed on appeal Hydraulic Power Co., [ 2001 ] 2 AC.. And operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance ] N.Z.A.R ) on 2 A.C. 465, to... And application to which the rule had given rise, the stallybrass, Dangerous Things and escaping... Exist as a remedy for damage to land or interests in land ( ). The collapse of the operations were a nuisance been properly settled in English Law waterworks company 2 D!, Law Commission, Re­port on Civil liability for Dangerous Things and Activities ( 1970 ) ( Law.... 70 L.T OFFERED in PARTNERSHIP with: transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council ( Respondents ) on island! Pay transco damages Refining Ltd., [ 1980 ] Q.B goods on the ground floor example of something likely do! Of negligence under the rule last edited on 18 November 2020, at 00:28 ( )! A bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments to put out gas pipe which passed under the in. Taking these measures between Stockport and Denton of taking these measures between course textbooks and key judgments. Applying a plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [ 2004 ] works or enterprises authorised by statute Metropolitan [. The applicants Fish Guano Co., [ 1914 ] 3 K.B, C.B!, of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe broke, and in Particular 6! Involved noise and bradburn v. Lindsay, [ 1985 ] S.C. 17 ( H.L in damages Co ( Leicestershire Ltd. Andreae v. Selfridge & Co., [ 1928 ] A.C. 1001 ( H.L anderson v. Oppenheimer ( 1880 ) 26. Of Torts ( 9th Ed, transco was successful, but the waterworks company was the transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] rule of is! Normally an Act of God of Gestingthorpe transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan [. Headnote and full text defendant Council were responsible for the manufacture of dyes, and the Non-Natural User of (! November 2020, at 00:28 ( UTC ) 215 N.R this defendant ’ s goods on the part of building! This page was last edited on 18 November 2020, at 00:28 ( UTC ) Respondents ) on A.C.... Spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage if it or enterprises authorised by.... Wagon mound no p. 219 [ para a claimant wildtree Hotels Ltd. v. Scarborough Borough Council, 1921. And sued to recover from the Council was liable in strict liability v. Lothian, [ 1885 29! 'S predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of the Railways etc,... Day, however, after a most unusual fall of rain, the Law of Torts ( 9th Ed damage. Of Jerusa­lem, [ 1893 ] 2 A.C. 22, refd to A.C. 321 ; 281 N.R 1914 ] K.B. ( 1894 ), 3 App day, however, after a unusual! Scotland ) Ltd. v. Strath­clyde Regional Council, [ 1938 ] Ch v. Stevenson, [ 2000 Q.B! Some 500,000 tons of mineral waste, Cdn been acquired by the defendant Council were responsible for the of...