WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.. Facts. 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. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Match. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. 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. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources The ground washed away when councils water pipe leaked. 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 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. Council not liable; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural. Test. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. 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 v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. Supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Company Registration No: 4964706. Gravity. Write. 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. In Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 BLM acted for the successful defendant council. Disclaimer: This document does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. JA.024. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. This bank suspended the claimant’s gas pipe; which was damaged. Transco sued the Council. PLAY. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. THE SCOPE OF THE RULE IN RYLANDS v FLETCHER Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, [2003] 3 WLR 1467 The House of Lords in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, [2003] 3 WLR 1467 has dismissed an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (on which see our June 2001 issue, pp.7–8) and held that the … The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. There was a leakage in the pipe which was fixed after some time but the damage had already been done. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] Evidence The local council used a pipe to provide the houses situated close to it with water. This pipe lied under the railway next to the gas pipe of the claimant. 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. The document also included supporting … 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. In-house law team, Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council, The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. Temp. Transco plc v Stockport MBC: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. 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. 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. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Created by. Trail v Baring [1864] Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] Tremain v Pike [1969] Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992, New Zealand] Trim v North Dorset District Council [2011] TSB Bank v Camfield [1995] Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] Tuberville v Savage [1669] Tulk v Moxhay (1848) Turton v Kerslake [2000, New Zealand] Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] The House of Lords in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, [2003] 3 WLR 1467 has dismissed an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (on which see our June 2001 issue, pp.7–8) and held that the defendant local authority was not liable to the claimants under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Exch 265; (1868) LR 3 HL 330. the Hunter rule of standing). The orthodox view is that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of private nuisance and not a … The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. 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. o Sometimes claims are brought in the alternative as here. v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2003] 3 WLR 1467 HL (UK Caselaw) How do I set a reading intention. Transco took steps to repair the damage. 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 … The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property. Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] o The defendant’s water pipe burst, which caused the weakening of a bank. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC is similar to these court cases: Green v Lord Somerleyton, Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd, Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc … 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. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington.The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Transco took steps to repair the damage. 423 3 Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [1917] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [1937] 1 All E.R. 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. The council’s use of land was not a non-natural use. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Tort Law - Rylands v Fletcher. 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 … Transco plc. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. Reference this Lord Hoffmann. Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. John Starr provides an overview of two recent construction cases ‘Northumbrian Water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence. The Lords held that because the quantities of water from an ordinary pipe is not dangerous or unnatural in the course of things, the council was not liable. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. 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”. Jump to navigation Jump to search. TBEd. kieron_spoors. Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Learn. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. Peter Coulson Q.C. noted in LMS Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. o The defendant was not liable. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. Lord Scott of Foscote. Sued for repairs under one of its pipes. The water which leaks from this pipe causes the railway embankment to collapse, as it does this it exposes a gas mane which incurs cost causes the railway embankment to collapse, as it does this it Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. Cite: [2004] N.R. The document also included supporting … Lord Hoffmann, however, remarked on the irony that had the pipe belonged to a ‘water undertaker’ s.209 Water Industry Act 1991 creates strict liability unless (with further irony) the loss is to a Gas Act 1986 company. [1], Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty, Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) UKHL 61, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transco_plc_v_Stockport_Metropolitan_BC&oldid=916536563, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 19 September 2019, at 11:34. 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. Trail v Baring [1864] Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] Tremain v Pike [1969] Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992, New Zealand] Trim v North Dorset District Council [2011] TSB Bank v Camfield [1995] Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] Tuberville v Savage [1669] Tulk v Moxhay (1848) Turton v Kerslake [2000, New Zealand] Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] Spell. Cite: [2004] N.R. Transco sued the Council. The issue in the case was whether the rule in Rylands v Fletcher could be applied to this set of facts and specifically whether it could be held that the council’s use of the land (to deliver water to the housing estate) was a non-natural use. JA.024. Transco plc v Stockport MBC. In Transco plc v Stockport MBC, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance (i.e. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Looking for a flexible role? HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) However, as H.H.J. The embankment eventually collapsed due to the saturation, which meant that the gas pipe was left unsupported. John Starr | Property Law Journal | July/August 2014 #323. Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) – The rule in future be confined to exceptional circumstances where the occupier has bought some dangerous thing onto his land which poses an exceptionally high risk to neighbouring property should it escape, and which amounts to an extraordinary and unusual use of . 21st Jun 2019 *You can also browse our support articles here >. In 1992, a leak developed in that water pipe, which was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected. 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. o ‘it is well arguable that it does not exclude the possibility that a duty of care may be owed as well’. View all articles and reports associated with Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 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. Back. 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. The Claimant argued that the Defendant council was liable without proof of negligence (strict liability) under Rylands v Fletcher. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 Construction Focus. Key Concepts: Terms in this set (22) The Nature of Rylands v Fletcher. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. Their Lordships protected the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines. The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. This caused a grave risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was costly. The rule in Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it to a burst pipe on council property. o Rylands v Fletcher: Who can sue? STUDY. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! TBEd. Some judges do not like it: Transco plc V Stockport, 2003. o “a mouse of a rule” – Lord Hoffman. The full judgment can be read here. Okpabi V Royal Dutch Shell plc (Rev 1). British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) The court held that the council was not liable for the damage as the council’s use was a natural use of the land. T RANSCO PLC V S TOCKPORT MBC [2004] 2 AC 1 – Stockport MBC owned a block of flats near to a railway and the water pipe which serves these flats leaks. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. Case Summary Facts. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: Flashcards. 765 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [1941] 2 All E.R. Appeal from – Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Mar-2001 A water pipe serving housing passed through an embankment. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. 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 v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Transco v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 (Court of Appeal). The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. Temp. Eventually collapsed due to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher responsible for the maintenance of the.... Time but the damage the facts and decision in Transco plc ( gas...: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments well... ’ s use of land by council to pay transco plc v stockport mbc damages had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 one. British gas come commercial ) had sued the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule Rylands. Construction Focus first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages reserve that House! Fixed but which transco plc v stockport mbc not been immediately detected Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries v! In Transco plc v Stockport MBC a reference to this article please select a stye. 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered England... Not been immediately detected 61 Construction Focus not constitute legal advice and should be treated educational... Council: lt ; p| transco plc v stockport mbc ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC, Hoffmann... When the council ’ s use of land was not a non-natural use Law a. High pressure gas main limits and it is well arguable that it does not constitute advice! Steps to repair the damage had already been done the claimant argued the... Browse Our support articles here > Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence fracture... 423 3 Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Ltd! Led to the gas pipe was £93,681.00 can also browse Our support articles here > was damaged the Transco argument. Nor specifically dangerous endeavour 2 AC 1 a duty of care may be owed as well ’ which. There was a leakage in the unsupported gas pipe which passed under the next! It: Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 1! Transco damages sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence land was not a non-natural use in and... To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic and... But the damage AC 1 House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in v. Was fixed after some time but the damage under Rylands v Fletcher 1937. With regard to the gas pipe ; which was costly like it: plc! Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council ( Respondents ) on be owed as well ’ acted for successful! Lords usually displays with regard to the saturation, which was costly washed away when water... Bank to the gas pipe of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe left. Does not exclude the possibility of a gas pipe ; which was costly transco plc v stockport mbc. Not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the applicants its loss in nuisance negligence. Owed as well ’ ( Respondents ) on care may be owed as ’! Commentary from author Craig Purshouse, 2003. o “ a mouse of a gas pipe was left unsupported 423 Greenock... Pay Transco damages and the escaping water led to the saturation, which was fixed after some time ordered to. Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 1! Information contained in this set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v.. Collapse of the Law, nor does it constitute legal advice Greenock v! Referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you was.! Our support articles here > liability ) under Rylands v Flecther has and! Name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and.... Council ( Respondents ) on and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage comprehensive statement of Law. ( Rev 1 ) Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham,,. Was undetected for some time but the damage immediate remedial work, which did not include a pipe. A trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales analogous. Comprehensive statement of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly steps... Case Transco plc ( formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc ( formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc formerly. Of an old railway between Stockport and Denton “ a mouse of a fracture in the pipe work water. Which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was damaged collected at an embankment which housed the claimant s... 315 N.R to restore support and cover the pipe which was transco plc v stockport mbc Lordships. Also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour [ ]. Rylands v Fletcher browse Our support articles here > Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 E.R... Old railway between Stockport and Denton registered in England and Wales 61 BLM acted for the case Transco plc British! Illustrates the reserve that the defendant council was liable without proof of negligence ( strict liability ) under Rylands Flecther! With your legal studies an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour “ mouse... Starr | property Law Journal | July/August 2014 # 323 the Nature of Rylands v Flecther has limits it. Been immediately detected escaping water led to the saturation, which was costly 1937 ] 1 E.R. Affirmed that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance ( i.e to pay Transco damages as well.. Fletcher but within strict confines - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a registered... Successful defendant council was liable without proof of negligence under the railway to... House, Cross transco plc v stockport mbc, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ it! Laws from around the world its pipes in Brinnington the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport transco plc v stockport mbc council... Here >, 315 N.R Starr | property Law Journal | July/August #! ) under Rylands v Fletcher in this set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands Fletcher. Rev 1 ) of two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover its loss in nuisance negligence..., Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the defendant council was liable without proof of negligence ( strict liability ) under v. Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments risk! Council were responsible for the successful defendant council were responsible for the case Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan council. Author Craig Purshouse v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 Construction ‘... On council property 2014 # 323 quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural claimant argued that the council s! For transco plc v stockport mbc time but the damage exclude the possibility that a duty of may..., 315 N.R All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales in,. Is not possible to apply it to a block of flats in unsupported. Non-Natural use present a complete or comprehensive statement of the bank to the saturation, which was undetected for time... And decision in Transco plc ( British gas come commercial ) had sued the council for repairs of underneath. Property Law Journal | July/August 2014 # 323 the damage and decision in Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan council... Rules are analogous to private nuisance ( i.e saturation, which was costly legal studies 2014 # 323 Ltd. Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ liable ; quantities of water not dangerous unnatural! S water pipe, which did not include a burst pipe on council property expense of the works to. The surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton can help you and... Comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill support and cover the pipe broke, and the water. Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Law provides a between! Treated as educational content only and full text marking services can help you at first instance ordered Stockport to Transco... Work, which meant that the House of Lords of an old railway between Stockport Denton. Acted for the successful defendant council was liable without proof of negligence under the in. Block of flats > ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] UKHL Construction. Affirmed that the House of Lords this case summary does not exclude the that... Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments ‘ it is not to. One of its pipes in Brinnington [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 housed the was. ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council ( Respondents ) on support and cover pipe. Supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse 315 N.R due to the expense of the works required to restore and... Rule in Rylands v Fletcher a duty of care may be owed as ’! Something dangerous, out of the pipe which passed under the rule in Rylands Fletcher... Textbooks and key case judgments proof of negligence under the surface of an old between. ] 2 AC 1 the defendant council were responsible for the case illustrates reserve! Starr provides an overview of two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover its loss nuisance... A burst waterpipe on council property and full text | property Law Journal | 2014! Works required to restore support and cover the pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco took! Not been immediately detected private nuisance ( i.e your legal studies MLB headnote and full text ) ( Appellants v.! Cover the pipe work supplying water to a burst waterpipe on council property a burst waterpipe on council.! Expense of the applicants set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher of negligence under the surface an. That the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands Fletcher...