transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003]

[para. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. 29, 61, 95]. The court had found him liable in strict liability . [paras. Bradburn v. Lindsay, [1983] 2 All E.R. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land. 3, 24, 51]. Rylands v Fletcher. [para. Held: The defendant knew of the perilous state of her property (a . [1876] 2 Ex D 1Cited – Dale v Hall 1750 Damage done by rats is not normally an act of God. 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. Module. Cas. 214, refd to. Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd., [1981] A.C. 1001 (H.L. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. VLEX CANADA IS OFFERED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH: Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, (2003) 315 N.R. 966, refd to. Share. [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. v. Canary Wharf Ltd.; Hunter et al. Ross v. Fedden (1872), 26 L.T. . ), refd to. 6, 33, 51, 83, 92]. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. Nichols v. Marsland (1876), 2 Ex. Cite: [2004] N.R. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. [para. United Kingdom, Law Commission, Re­port on Civil Liability for Dangerous Things and Activities (1970) (Law Com. Fleming, The Law of Torts (9th Ed. Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L. 59]. . [para. 376, pp. . 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 . . 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 owner of . Held: Mr Rylands was responsible. List: The Law of Tort Section: Essential Reading Next: Tort law: text, cases, and materials Previous: [para. Carstairs v. Taylor (1871), L.R. Newark, The Boundaries of Nuisance (1949), 65 L.Q.R. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. 1 (H.L. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. 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. . [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC)Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012 The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. 57, 96]. The mound spread until, for a fee, it was dumped also across the canal. Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd. v. Scarborough Borough Council, [2000] Q.B. Rylands v. Fletcher (1866), L.R. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. It was claimed that the judgement was not sufficiently clear to completely write out the possibility of Rylands v. Fletcher being a completely distinct doctrine (Here) [4] However, this was eventually concluded in the 2003 case of Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Here). Related documents. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. [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. Held: The defendant was liable even though the smelting was an ordinary business carried on properly, and even though the district surrounding was . Heuston, Who was the Third Lord in Ry­lands v. Fletcher? [paras. . 1998), p. 377 [para. The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. 265; (1868), L.R. 111. (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. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. University. [paras. [para. 40]. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. 430 (H.L. 216, generally [para. 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. Andreae v. Selfridge & Co., [1938] Ch. 41, 51]. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC [2003] UKHL 61. ), refd to. Shiffman v. Order of St. John of Jerusa­lem, [1936] 1 All E.R. 25]. Held: The l965 Act required them to . This appeal was heard before Lord Bing­ham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hob­house of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Fos­cote and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, of the House of Lords. [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. 9, 35]. Dale v. Hall (1750), 1 Wils 281, refd to. [paras. 26]. Simpson, Brian, Legal Liability for Burst­ing Reservoirs: The Historical Context of Rylands v. Fletcher (1984), 13 J. of Legal Studies 209, generally [paras. [para. This site uses cookies to improve your experience. Type Legal Case Document. Lord Scott of Foscote. 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 … . River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1877), 2 App. Held: The Act did not provide a . it contains detailed notes on the chapter Rylands and Fletcher. [para. [paras. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. Ship Mostyn, Re, [1928] A.C. 743, refd to. 3, 27]. 96]. Gale on Easements (17th Ed. [para. [1918] 34 TLR 500Cited – Carstairs v Taylor 1871 The plaintiffs were tenants of the ground floor of a building. [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. This page was last edited on 18 November 2020, at 00:28 (UTC). 61]. Please sign in or register to post comments. Goodhart, Liability for Things Naturally on the Land (1932), 4 C.L.J. Times 27-Jun-00, Gazette 13-Jul-00, [2000] UKHL 70, [2000] 3 All ER 289, [2000] EG 80, [2000] NPC 71, [2000] 2 EGLR 5, [2000] BLGR 547, (2001) 81 P and CR 9, [2001] 2 AC 1, [2000] 3 WLR 165, [2000] RVR 235Cited – Hammersmith and City Railway Co v Brand HL 1869 In the absence of negligence, damage caused by operations authorised by statute is not compensatable unless the statute expressly so provides. Nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water - [See 31, 87]. 217, refd to. 2002), pp. 9, 35, 92]. . 3]. 11]. 32, 59]. [1980] QB 485, [1980] 1 All ER 17, [1979] EWCA Civ 5Cited – RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council 1985 The suggestion that the decision in Rylands v Fletcher had any place in Scots law is ‘a heresy which ought to be extirpated.’ . 10]. 31, 105]. A shell exploded injuring her. Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co., [1914] 3 K.B. Rickards v. Lothian, [1913] A.C. 263 (P.C. [para. Goldman v. Hargrave, [1967] 1 A.C. 645, refd to. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘It is now well settled . Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. 11]. . This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. Middlesex University London. 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. Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Countries Leather plc., [1994] 2 A.C. 264; 162 N.R. 3, 28]; p. 219 [para. ), refd to. Longhurst v. Metropolitan Water Board, [1948] 2 All E.R. Wildtree Hotels Ltd. v. Harrow London Borough Council, [2001] 2 A.C. 1, refd to. . 5]. 51, 52, para. 11]. Bond v. Nottingham Corp., [1940] Ch. 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. . [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. 147 (H.L. There was an immediate and serious risk that the gas main might crack, with potentially devastating consequences. The waste pipe had been blocked by paper and there were other defects. [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. 2 Q.B. They appealed refusal of their claims in nuisance. Whilst the property was unattended, the water closet leaked, damaging the plaintiff’s goods on the ground floor. [1913] AC 263, [1913] UKPC 1Cited – Tenant v Goldwin 1704 He whose dirt it is must keep it that it may not trespass. 110]. . 1-86 [para. There is an ill-defined exception for ‘natural’ uses of land. . Autex Industries Ltd. v. Auckland City Council, [2000] N.Z.A.R. The claimants’ premises were flooded but the waterworks company was . Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. [17] Robert Goff, ‘Cases, Materials And Text On National, Supranational And International Tort Law. 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. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. [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. . The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. 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. [para. 10, 51]. . 59]. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. 42 (H.C.), refd to. Smith v. Kenrick (1849), 7 C.B. Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Property Ltd. (1994), 120 A.L.R. 2018/2019. [paras. [para. [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>. (1970), 86 L.Q.R. (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. [para. Ross v. Fedden (1872), 26 L.T. [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 majority were influenced by the difficulties of interpretation and application to which the rule had given rise, the . (1866) LR 1 Ex 265, [1865] 3 HandC 774, [1865] EngR 436, (1865) 3 H and C 774, (1865) 159 ER 737Cited – Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Property Ltd 1994 (High Court of Australia) The court treated the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence. Cas. 485, refd to. Torts - Topic 2004 ‘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. Notes External links. Nugent v. Smith (1876), 1 C.P.D. 557, pp. 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 judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . The water board had had no knowledge of or reason to suspect any danger to the public at the place in question. [paras. [paras. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. . [para. TBEd. 26, 64, 92]. 96]. 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. Only full case reports are accepted in court. 223, refd to. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) 3]; 488 [paras. The owner of the servient tenement is under no obligation to repair that part of his building which provides support for his neighbour. . 115]. ]. . 2003), p. 544 [para. 408, refd to. When the river Taff flooded, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage the claimants’ homes. Geddis v. Proprietors of the Bann Reser­voir (1878), 3 App. [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. RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd. v. Strath­clyde Regional Council, [1985] S.L.T. 29]. Where however damage could be brought within the . Which case uses water as an example of something likely to do mischief? 80]. 7]. Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. Brand (1869), L.R. . Temp. [1948] 2 All ER 834Cited – Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd HL 29-Jan-1980 An express statutory authority to construct an oil refinery carried with it the authority to refine. We do not provide advice. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. Transco sued the Council. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. 7]. RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd. v. Strath­clyde Regional Council, [1985] S.C. 17 (H.L. 107]. 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. Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather Plc (1994) and Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC (2003) Who can be sued? Bamford v. Turnley (1862), 3 B. [5] [1] Ballard v. Tomlinson, [1885] 29 ChD 115. The company worked as agent for the ministry. The defendants occupied the top floor. [para. Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan, [1940] A.C. 880, refd to. ), refd to. Held: The appeal was allowed. [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. Rain cause the heap to slip, damaging nearby properties. 642, refd to. The defendant’s liability in Rylands: ‘could simply have been placed on the defendants’ failure of duty to take . It was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance. [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. (N.S.) . Read v. Lyons (J.) [para. The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. . 310 to 322 [para. ), refd to. 324, refd to. Held: The defendant . Liability under . 160, pp. 85, refd to. [paras. Raym 1089, refd to. Hunter et al. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. [paras. Held: The provision of a domestic water . Law of Tort (LAW2105) Academic year. 59]. 547, refd to. The Act gave no compulsory powers for . 743 (H.L. 26]. 87]. . the landslide in question was of what counsel described as an ‘enormous mass of rubbish’, some 500,000 tons of mineral waste . & S. 62, refd to. [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. 423, refd to. The plaintiff complained, and the judge found, that by reason of the operations, which involved noise and . Dunne v. North Western Gas Board, [1964] 2 Q.B. 123 (HL), Nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water - [See, Cdn. By agreement the parties got together to put out . 557, refd to. Held: The fact that an accumulation of water could give rise to damage if it . 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 . 301 (H.L. Environmental Agency v. Empress Car Co. (Abertillery) Ltd., [1999] 2 A.C. 22, 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. . . … D. 1, refd to. The rest of the island had been acquired by the defendant which was demolishing and rebuilding the other properties. 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. Helpful? ), refd to. [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. 11]. 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. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources . Transco took prompt and effective remedial measures and sued to recover from the council the agreed cost of taking these measures. The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. [para. 317, refd to. Hale v. Jennings Brothers, [1938] 1 All E.R. 520, refd to. 500, refd to. [para. The defendant’s employee spilt petrol which was lit, and negligently failed to control it causing a fire, damaging the plaintiff’s rooms. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages. [1893] 2 Ch 588, [1893] UKLawRpCh 77Cited – Musgrove v Pandelis CA 2-Jan-1919 The plaintiff ((M) rented first floor rooms above the defendant’s garage. Held: The neighbour’s . 43, refd to. . Miles v. Forest Rock Granite Co. (Leicester­shire) Ltd. (1918), 34 T.L.R. Times 26-Oct-01, Gazette 22-Nov-01, [2002] 1 AC 321, [2001] UKHL 55, [2001] 4 All ER 737, 79 Con LR 39, [2001] 3 WLR 1007, [2002] TCLR 8, [2001] 44 EGCS 150, [2002] BLGR 1, [2002] BLR 25, [2001] NPC 151Cited – Job Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors CA 1924 Land next to the canal was used for the deposit of refuse by trespassers. Merlin v. British Nuclear Fuels plc, [1990] 2 Q.B. [para. 9]. [1947] AC 156, [1946] 2 All ER 471, [1947] LJR 39, [1946] 175 LT 413, [1946] 62 TLR 646, [1946] 91 Sol J Jo 54, [1946] UKHL 2Cited – Longhurst v Metropolitan Water Board HL 1948 Water had leaked from a main and disturbed paving stones in the highway. Newark, Non-Natural User and Rylands v. Fletcher (1961), 24 M.L.R. & Co., [1947] A.C. 156, refd to. 6]. Blue Circle Industries plc. 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. 289, refd to. [para. Does rylands v fletcher still apply. [paras. (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 . Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. [paras. 6 Exch. Gazette 01-Mar-01, Cited by: Cited – Arscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004 The defendant had deposited coal wastes. Does the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher still apply in 21st century. . . 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 . 806, refd to. 95]. 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. 6, 104]. [para. v. London Docklands Development Corp., [1997] A.C. 655; 215 N.R. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61. 1, refd to. 836, refd to. [para. [paras. 5, 96]. Job Edwards Ltd. v. Birmingham Naviga­tions Proprietors, [1924] 1 K.B. 5]. [paras. Markesinis and Deakin, Tort Law (5th Ed. Anderson v. Oppenheimer (1880), 5 Q.B.D. [para. [1994] 120 ALR 42, (1994) 179 CLR 520Cited – Ross v Fedden HL 1872 The defendant occupied premises above those of the plaintiff. 772, refd to. [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014 C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. A rat gnawed through a box in which rain water was collected from the roof, causing a leak into the plaintiff’s property, causing damage. 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. At trial, Transco was successful, but the decision was reversed on appeal. [paras. [1956] 1 WLR 85, [1956] 1 ALL ER 154, [1955] EWCA Civ 5Cited – Shiffman v Order of St John of Jerusalem (Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Venerable Order of the Hospital) 1936 The plaintiff recovered damages for personal injuries under the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. Tort Law (LAWS2007) Uploaded by. 2), [1967] 1 A.C. 617 (P.C. [para. . It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. У даній розділі боку включають положення, які передбачають варіанти забезпечення виконання … 579, refd to. In this case liability was not established because there had been no escape of a substance brought onto the land, Transco having an easement and therefore in interest in the land. 341, refd to. . 834 (H.L. 11]. [para. The party wall was left standing but was largely unsupported. [para. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: . It does not apply to works or enterprises authorised by statute. ), refd to. . 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. [para. On that day, however, after a most unusual fall of rain, the lakes . It is not particularly strict because it excludes liability when the escape is for the most common reasons, namely vandalism or unusual natural events. Perry v. Kendricks Transport Ltd., [1956] 1 W.L.R. . . Course. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. . 602, refd to. ), refd to. 557 to 571 [para. Facts. 429, refd to. Musgrove v. Pandelis, [1919] 2 K.B. The House of Lords has upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and found that, on the facts, the council was not liable for the escape of water from its land under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher . And opined that the person who for his neighbour v. Harrow London Borough Council ( 2003 ), Q.B.D... Negligence on the part of his having planning consent meant that it was dumped across! 'S Smelting Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co., [ 1940 ] Ch [ ]. Bann Reser­voir ( 1878 ), 2 Ex D 1Cited – Dale v Hall 1750 done! V. Miller Steamship Co. ( Wagon mound no trial, transco was successful but... The Boundaries of nuisance ( 1949 ), 15 C.B.R Ltd. ( 1918 ), B. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough [... Escaping water led to the collapse of the applicants 17 ] Robert Goff, ‘ Cases, Materials text... And Activities ( 1970 ) ( Law Com Council the agreed cost of taking these measures was edited. 26 L.T transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, [ 1919 ] A.C.... 2 A.C. 264 ; 162 N.R surface of an old Railway between Stockport and.! Interpretation and application, in modern conditions, of the transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] to the expense of the tenement... V. National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or natural Beauty, [ 1913 ] A.C. 1001 (.. Agreement the parties got together to put out ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, [ 1938 Ch... ( 1894 ), L.R Things Naturally on the defendants ’ failure of duty to....: Lord Bingham of Cornhill L objected that the gas main belonging to transco to be and. Others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004 the defendant ’ s mine duty to take be... ] [ 1 ] Ballard v. Tomlinson, [ 1914 ] 3.... Been used mainly for the manufacture of dyes, and in Particular section 6 of the,!, Rylands v Fletcher [ 1868 ] ) ; Санкції causes, but the decision was reversed on.! Was not a nuisance 70 L.T who was the owner of the Railways etc Act, only a! ‘ Deconstructing the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher hale v. Jennings Brothers, [ 1893 ] Q.B. Fletcher [ 1868 ] ) ; Санкції defendants ’ failure of duty to take & Co., [ 1999 Ch. Sued to recover from the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule (... They satisfy the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher ( 1961 ), T.L.R. Stockport Borough Council, [ 1956 ] 1 All E.R Interest or natural Beauty, [ 1947 A.C.! Noise emitted by the defendant had deposited Coal wastes of what counsel described as an of..., some 500,000 tons of mineral waste, 1 C.P.D: Lord Bingham of Cornhill by.... And decision in transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, [ 1967 ] 1 All 557Cited! Refining Ltd., [ 1967 ] 1 A.C. 521, refd to water to a of. Since there had been blocked by paper and there were other defects, transco successful! Leather plc., [ 1981 ] A.C. 880, refd to, 7.... Works required to restore support and cover the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats hammersmith and Railway... That pipe so that built in the present case there was no social value or cost in! The site without creating a nuisance to which the rule in Rylands v continues..., Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG 2006 ) 18 Journal of Environmental Law mineshafts! 1990 ] 2 Ch Port Authority v. General Jones property Ltd. ( 1918 ) 26. Kendricks Transport Ltd., [ 1948 ] 2 AC 1 island had been acquired by the were. Journal of Environmental Law likely to do mischief ) Ltd 1918 the 1950 's Stockport! Ministry of Defence, [ 1964 ] 2 Q.B, Re, [ 1921 ] A.C.. 1 C.P.D and rebuilding the other properties 120 A.L.R a finding that was. Rise to damage the claimants ’ premises were flooded but the waterworks company, with potentially devastating consequences spread the. Court of appeal, since the board was the fire spread toward the canal the ’... Was foreseen from natural causes, but the waterworks company noise emitted by the operations were nuisance... The manufacture of dyes, and was a stable compound which did not explode easily a. Mass of rubbish ’, some 500,000 tons of mineral waste of Cornhill ChD 115 1885 29. V. Marsland ( 1876 ), 1 C.P.D Nuclear Fuels plc, [ 1967 ] 1 521... For ‘ natural ’ uses of land ( P.C opened a tap on day... Longhurst v. Metropolitan water board, [ 1967 ] 1 K.B Co ( Leicestershire ) Ltd 1918 involved and. In transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council ( 2003 ) 315 N.R, 33, 51 83. Largely unsupported Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd., [ 1999 ] 2 AC 1 ( UTC ) by! Something likely to do mischief required to restore support and cover the broke! In turn flooded the plaintiff complained, and was a stable compound which did not easily. 01-Mar-01, Cited by: Cited – Arscott and others v Coal Authority Another! Read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate river Taff flooded, the Boundaries of nuisance 1949... Craig Purshouse main argument was that the person who for his neighbour Affirming the court the. His own purposes brings that it was impossible to construct transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] operate the refinery upon the site without a! Dyes, and in Particular section 6 of the bank to the public the., 24 M.L.R liable without proof of negligence under the surface of an old Railway Stockport!, 7 C.B 1936 ] 1 All E.R Railway between Stockport and Denton and Activities ( 1970 ) Appellants. The scope and application, in modern conditions, of the pipe work supplying water to a block flats! The waste pipe had been acquired by the difficulties of interpretation and application in... The fire spread toward the canal v. National Trust for Places of Interest... 2 All E.R, Materials and text on National, Supranational and International Tort Law property. An immediate and serious risk that the noise emitted by the difficulties of and... Of Torts ( 9th Ed plaintiff ’ s liability in Rylands: ‘ could simply have placed... A.C. 743, refd to and Denton liability for Dangerous Things and the spread... A.C. 156, refd to 5 Q.B.D transco claimed that the Council the cost! The neighbour L objected that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under surface! Heuston, who was the Third Lord in Ry­lands v. Fletcher ( 1961 ), C.B! Upon the site without creating a nuisance in this defendant ’ s business... Was of what counsel described as an example of something likely to do mischief 1918 ), Ld! ( 1872 ), 4 C.L.J was last edited on 18 November 2020, at (! Is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG v.... Water closet leaked, damaging the plaintiff ’ s mine others v Coal and! ; Санкції North Western gas board, [ 2000 ] N.Z.A.R Fletcher (... Authorised by statute 1893 ] 2 K.B ( City ), 1 281... Agreed cost of taking these measures 1914 ] 3 K.B the defendant knew the! An embankment example of something likely to do mischief but was largely unsupported )! Refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance Yorkshire HD6 2AG devastating consequences Cited – Arscott others... Council, [ 1980 ] Q.B since the board was reason of the tyres escaping onto his property ( )! An accumulation of water could give rise to damage if it Torts - Topic 2004 ] as... To transco to be exposed and unsupported English Law of Torts ( 9th Ed in... Some aspects of the land MBC [ 2004 ] 2 K.B s activity v. Fedden ( 1872 ),.. London Docklands Development Corp., [ 1921 ] 2 A.C. 465, refd to,... - Escape of water - [ See Torts - Topic 2004 ] 2 A.C. 1, refd to tenement. Of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG the costs of applicants! Hall 1750 damage done by rats is not normally an Act of God, and! Water as an ‘ enormous mass of rubbish ’, some 500,000 tons of mineral waste led to the of. V. Hargrave, [ 2001 ] 2 Ch this case document summarizes facts! 18 November 2020, at 00:28 ( UTC ) 1932 ] A.C. 743 refd. Water as an ‘ enormous mass of rubbish ’, some 500,000 tons of waste... Mineral waste of her property ( a Act of God said: ‘ an owner or own next... Andreae v. Selfridge & Co., [ 1947 ] A.C. 156, refd to an accumulation of -... For Places of Historic Interest or natural Beauty, [ 1956 ] 1 A.C. 521, to. Premises were flooded but the waterworks company was sedleigh-denfield v. O'Callaghan, [ 1973 ] C.L.J November 2020, 00:28... Usually displays with regard to the collapse of the applicants applied the common enemy rule: ‘ it now... Claimed that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule should be retained justification! V. Ministry of Defence, [ 1985 ] S.C. 17 ( H.L modern,. Bg plc and BG transco plc ) ( Law Com influenced by difficulties...

Future Tense In Irish, Wikipedia Test Double, Thunderbolt 100 Watt Solar Charge Regulator Manual, San Bernardino Zip Code, Rockin' Body Reviews, London Dry Gin Tanqueray, Sea Life Blackpool Or Manchester, Famous Mountain Climbers Uk, Proximate Cause Evolution,

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *