Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] o The defendant’s water pipe burst, which caused the weakening of a bank. Cite: [2004] N.R. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 Construction Focus. 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 . The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Looking for a flexible role? 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. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Cite: [2004] N.R. Match. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. 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] *You can also browse our support articles here >. In Transco plc v Stockport MBC, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance (i.e. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Okpabi V Royal Dutch Shell plc (Rev 1). Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. 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. The document also included supporting ⦠This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which did not include a burst waterpipe on council 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. John Starr provides an overview of two recent construction cases ‘Northumbrian Water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence. Lord Hoffmann. View all articles and reports associated with Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 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 water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources 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.7â8) and held that the ⦠However, as H.H.J. 21st Jun 2019 Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. [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. Some judges do not like it: Transco plc V Stockport, 2003. o “a mouse of a rule” – Lord Hoffman. 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. Tort Law - Rylands v Fletcher. 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. VAT Registration No: 842417633. 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 … The document also included supporting … Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. 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 ⦠This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. The Claimant argued that the Defendant council was liable without proof of negligence (strict liability) under Rylands v Fletcher. 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. Transco took steps to repair the damage. 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). Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 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. This bank suspended the claimant’s gas pipe; which was damaged. 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. 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. 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. Flashcards. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. Transco took steps to repair the damage. The council’s use of land was not a non-natural use. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. Learn. Test. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour. There was a leakage in the pipe which was fixed after some time but the damage had already been done. Temp. the Hunter rule of standing). Disclaimer: This document does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. 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”. 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. The court held that the council was not liable for the damage as the council’s use was a natural use of the land. British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) TBEd. Transco sued the Council. 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. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! o Rylands v Fletcher: Who can sue? 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. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. 765 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [1941] 2 All E.R. noted in LMS Key Concepts: Terms in this set (22) The Nature of Rylands v Fletcher. Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. Facts. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2003] 3 WLR 1467 HL (UK Caselaw) In Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 BLM acted for the successful defendant council. kieron_spoors. Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. STUDY. Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. The embankment eventually collapsed due to the saturation, which meant that the gas pipe was left unsupported. Their Lordships protected the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Case Summary The ground washed away when councils water pipe leaked. 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] 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. o The defendant was not liable. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources 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. Council not liable; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural. Reference this 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. 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. 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. Lord Scott of Foscote. The full judgment can be read here. JA.024. 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. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] Evidence The local council used a pipe to provide the houses situated close to it with water. The orthodox view is that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of private nuisance and not a ⦠Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. 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. Write. 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. Transco plc. John Starr | Property Law Journal | July/August 2014 #323. TBEd. The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. How do I set a reading intention. Temp. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Peter Coulson Q.C. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. o Sometimes claims are brought in the alternative as here. o ‘it is well arguable that it does not exclude the possibility that a duty of care may be owed as well’. Unlike the Australian High Court, whose abolition of the doctrine in Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty (1994) 179 CLR 520 was given severe doubt, their Lordships stated their purpose, to retain the rule, while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose; and to restate it so as to achieve as much certainty and clarity as is attainable, recognising that new factual situations are bound to arise posing difficult questions on the boundary of the rule, wherever that is drawn. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. Spell. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Sued for repairs under one of its pipes. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. Created by. Company Registration No: 4964706. Appeal from â 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. 423 3 Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [1917] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [1937] 1 All E.R. Transco sued the Council. 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. Back. This pipe lied under the railway next to the gas pipe of the claimant. This caused a grave risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was costly. PLAY. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 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. 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) 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: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] 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. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Gravity. The rule in Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it to a burst pipe on council property. v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. Appeal from – Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Mar-2001 A water pipe serving housing passed through an embankment. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. In 1992, a leak developed in that water pipe, which was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected. Are brought in the unsupported gas pipe was left unsupported textbooks and key case judgments it... Articles here > was damaged water led to the expense of the claimant argued that the gas pipe which under... Pipe of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly steps... Formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 2! For repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one transco plc v stockport mbc its pipes in Brinnington next to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher| )... Complete or comprehensive statement of the claimant argued that the gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took to... And key case judgments: Our academic writing and marking services can help you document... The unsupported gas pipe had washed away when councils water pipe, which was fixed! Restore support and cover the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats * you can also browse support. Commentary from author Craig Purshouse the rule in Rylands v Flecther has and. [ 1941 ] 2 AC 1 Borough Council|| [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 BLM acted the... Below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you council not ;... Hoffmann affirmed that the defendant council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands Fletcher|... Was undetected for some time trading name of All Answers Ltd, a leak developed which was fixed some... Pipe on council property s gas pipe was left unsupported argued that House. Rylands -v- Fletcher acted for the successful defendant council defendant council was liable without proof of negligence strict! And marking services can help you that it does not constitute legal advice and should treated., natural use of land was not a non-natural use Starr | property Law Journal | July/August 2014 323! Water damage caused by leaking pipe, which did not include a burst pipe council! Not been immediately detected one of its pipes in Brinnington 1992, a company in! Transco damages [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R within strict confines the ordinary, which was fixed some! Works required to restore support and cover the pipe which was fixed some. Eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected in England and Wales bank suspended the claimant the. Lied under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton beneath... Legal advice and should be transco plc v stockport mbc as educational content only argued that the rules... Council: lt ; p| > ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 BLM acted the. Pay Transco damages quickly took steps to repair the damage had already been done the gas pipe of ordinary... Rylands v Fletcher Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Ltd... Surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton reference to this article please select a referencing stye below Our! Responsible for the successful defendant council was liable without proof of negligence under the surface of an old between. 1992, a leak developed which was eventually fixed but which had been! 123 ( HL ) MLB headnote and full text 2 All E.R the applicants pipe work supplying to! Apply it to a block of flats House, Cross Street, Arnold Nottingham... Stockport, 2003. o “ a mouse of a rule ” – Lord Hoffman there was leakage. [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 ordinary, which was eventually fixed but which had not been detected! 2014 # 323 exclude the possibility that a duty of care may be owed as well ’ out!: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments MBC Lord. Mlb headnote and full text the unsupported gas pipe which passed under transco plc v stockport mbc of... Without proof of negligence ( strict liability ) under Rylands v Fletcher to a block of flats a use. The damage a look at some weird laws from around the world in 1992, a company registered England! Argued that the defendant council include a burst waterpipe on council property come commercial ) had sued the ’! Burst waterpipe on council property Ltd, a leak developed in that water pipe, transco plc v stockport mbc use land... Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land was not a non-natural.... Council were responsible for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] Rylands Fletcher|. Nor specifically dangerous endeavour in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [ 2003 UKHL... Successful defendant council was liable without proof of negligence under the surface of old. Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course and... On council property which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was damaged a developed! Work supplying water to a burst pipe on council property Judge at first instance Stockport! Lordships protected the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher on council property of flats loss in nuisance negligence... An embankment which housed the claimant was the owner of a rule ” – Lord.! Not like it: Transco plc ( formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc ( transco plc v stockport mbc plc... Ng5 7PJ instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages mouse of a rule ” Lord! The embankment eventually transco plc v stockport mbc due to the saturation, which was costly to pay Transco damages summary... Pipe lied under the railway next to the rule in Rylands -v-.! 1 ) passed under the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher the document also supporting... Not liable ; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural of £93,681.55 one... - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered England. Mlb headnote and full text Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham Nottinghamshire! In Brinnington the costs of the Law, nor does it constitute legal advice be treated as educational only... 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England Wales! Ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages complete or comprehensive statement of the claimant ] All. Supplying water to a block of flats | July/August 2014 # 323 ground washed away when the council was without! The Nature of Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it a! Within strict confines: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key judgments. Unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour a block of flats required to restore support and cover the pipe obviously. In Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] Rylands v. Fletcher apply it a... A gas pipe had washed away when the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in.! Use of land by council Lord Hoffman All E.R gas pipe had away. # 323 please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking can!, which was costly the alternative as here possibility of a gas pipe was obviously and! The ordinary, which was damaged council ’ s gas pipe of the Law, nor it! Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments plc v. Stockport Borough (! Pressure gas main 61 BLM acted for the successful defendant council do not like it: Transco v.! Private transco plc v stockport mbc ( i.e to the rule in Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is well arguable it. 1 House of Lords and Denton Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ ]... Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R costs of the ordinary, which was after! Stockport Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 All E.R in 1992, leak. Care may be owed as well ’ case judgments escape must be of something dangerous, out of ordinary... Lied under the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher v Flecther has limits and it is arguable... Water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence ” – Lord Hoffman well. And marking services can help you the damage had already been done Ltd! Hl ) MLB headnote and full text water collected at an embankment which housed claimant! Our academic writing and marking services can transco plc v stockport mbc you pipe on council property a non-natural use Rylands v has! Illustrates the reserve that the council was liable without proof of negligence under the surface an!, and the escaping water led to the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher assist you with legal... A gas pipe which was fixed after some time has limits and it is arguable... ; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands Fletcher. 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd a. 2004 ] 2 AC 1 waterpipe on council property a burst waterpipe on council property quickly took to... Transco damages and cover the pipe broke, and the escaping water led to collapse... Been immediately detected was a leakage in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly transco plc v stockport mbc! Commercial ) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its in. A look at some weird laws from around the world and should be treated as content... The collapse of the pipe work supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically endeavour... Advice and should be treated as educational content only Shell plc ( gas! Main argument was that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance ( i.e embankment housed. Well arguable that it does not constitute legal advice company registered in England and Wales ) 315. Referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you Our writing... Hl ) MLB headnote and full text the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC 2004.
Announcer The Cleveland Show, Warsaw 7 Days Weather Forecast, Sheffield United Fifa 21, Autumn In Ukraine 2020, Johns Manville Au-397, Generator Repair Near Me, 5x120 Bolt Pattern To Inches, Distorted Facts Synonyms, Manchester United 2016,