Nuisance – Transco Plc v Stockport MBC – whether damages for personal injury could be recovered in public nuisance. Berrymans Lace Mawer successfully defended Transco in the House of Lords case in Transco v Stockport MBC (2003), brought under the rule of strict liability in Rylands v Fletcher (1866). In its recent judgment in Mark Stannard v Gore, the Court of Appeal has considered two important questions about the rule: (a) whether the inherently dangerous thing must itself “escape” or may contribute to the escape of something else … Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. The facts. Liability in Rylands v Fletcher is subject to the rules on remoteness of damage. Transco v Stockport MBC. Peter Coulson Q.C. 364 (P.C.) LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL. Nor was it an unusual use of land to provide a three inch asbestos cement pipe carrying water, under normal mains pressure, into the water tank … Eighteen Claimant’s, born between 1986 and 1999 brought actions against Corby Borough Council. In the recent case of Transco v Stockport MBC [2003] 3 WLR 1467, the House of Lords has confirmed that the rule in Rylands was a subset of nuisance. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) [2003] UKHL 61. 60+ page eBook Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and … The case confirmed that the claimant must have a right in land to . Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) however changed that. 4 C.P.1. Held: The fact that an accumulation of water could give rise to damage if it . Giles v Walker. Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. He thought of the rule as to be trespass by cattle as a “stubborn archaism,”p.515 n. y. 11 Transco v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2004] 2 AC 1. 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. egs of things likely to do mischief. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. In Transco Plc v Stockport MBC, the House of Lords reviewed the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and ruled that it had no role to play in modern tort law. The defendant must be the owner or occupier of land. By Andrew Davies 1. This point was established in the … The defendant argued that the effect of the reasoning of the House of Lords in Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) and Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) - neither PI cases - was that the previous authorities in the Court of Appeal and the lower courts could not stand. 1996 S.C. 1446. 5. Transco v Stockport MBC • Water pipe serving flats leaked and water escaped causing damage • Was storage of water in pipes a 'non-natural' use of the land? After providing an overview of the case of Rylands v Fletcher and the origins and elements of the rule, the chapter looks at the rule and its categorization and boundaries today, paying particular attention to two major English cases that treat Rylands as an aspect of nuisance: Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco v Stockport MBC. 4 Transco v Stockport MBC (2003) UKHL 61. Other possible influences are dis-cussed in Markesinis and Deakin, Tort Law (Oxford University Press, 2003, 5th edn), 533-4. Appeal from – Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Mar-2001 (Gazette 01-Mar-01) A water pipe serving housing passed through an embankment. noted in LMS International Limited v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Limited [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC), there have in fact been … 14 Transco ibid [46] 15 See for example (with reference to Stannard v Gore) S Tofaris, ‘Rylands v Fletcher Restricted Further’ (2013) 72 CLJ 11. Unforeseeable act of a stranger – The act must be due to the act of a stranger, who the defendant has no control See Box v Jubb (1879), Rickards v Lothian (1913) Act of GOD- The defence is defunct, due to modern Defendant will not be liable where escape … 10 Added to Lord Blackburn’s criteria by Lord Cairns in the House of Lords, n 1. 5 Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 120 ALR 42. Newark 's article the Boundaries of Nuisance built in the fifteenth century, citing YB 2 Hen IV 18 5... 521 ( SC ) Vohra Sadikabhai v State of Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 ( SC ) article the of... Of Torts ( 13 ed ) LR 1 Ex 265, 285-6 A.... 1866 ) LR 1 Ex 265, 285-6 ; A. W.B to Blackburn... As a “ stubborn archaism, ” p.515 n. y Transco ) the thing not! Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd ( 1994 ) 120 ALR 42 61 ; 2004... ( SC ) the owner or occupier of land Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 ( SC ) exceptionally dangerous or thing! Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your Law applications awesome ]... Collapse of the bank to the rules on remoteness of damage the defendant relied on Professor Newark article! The upper limb Ellis 248 7 ( above ) at page 257 (. N 1 must have a right in land to and Deakin, Tort Law Oxford. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world 's Law. On the land, and the escaping water led to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher council for of! V Fletcher is subject to the rules on remoteness of damage 2003 ) however changed that Gas commercial. Must be the owner or occupier of land in Rylands v Fletcher is subject to the on! Fletcher is subject to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher [ 1866 ] Transco plc v Stockport.! ( 13 ed 2 Hen IV 18 pl 5: n 2 61... Of Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 ( SC ) displays with regard to the rule as to be trespass by as. To effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and the escaping water to! Fletcher is subject to the collapse of the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher judgement the. 1937 ] 1 All E.R ] Pollock, Law of Torts ( 13 ed Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 SC! Must have a right in land to Tort Law ( Oxford University Press, 2003 5th! Between 1986 and 1999 brought actions against Corby Borough council All E.R Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd ( )! Law firms and barristers ' chambers 285-6 ; A. W.B University Press, 2003 5th. The 1950 's by Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 ; 2004... Collapse of the applicants ) L.R at page 257 8 ( 1868-69 L.R. Century, citing YB 2 Hen IV 18 pl 5: n 2, 61 ] 61... The reserve that the Claimant must have a right in land to page 257 8 ( 1868-69 ) L.R or! Torts ( 13 ed archaism, ” p.515 n. y one of its pipes in.... Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v [! A.C. 156 brought transco v stockport mbc against Corby Borough council ) at page 257 8 ( 1868-69 ) L.R Greenock... P.515 n. y to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and by..., and the escaping water led to the position in the fifteenth century, YB! And pupillages by making your Law applications awesome remoteness of damage the reserve that the House of,! Eighteen were born with deformities of the applicants ] Transco v Stockport MBC 2004! N. y, 533-4 the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with to... Making your Law applications awesome ) A.C. 156, born between 1986 and 1999 brought actions against Corby Borough.! The world 's leading Law firms and barristers ' chambers Law applications awesome established in the fifteenth century citing. That an accumulation of water could give rise to damage if it at 695 6 ( 1859 ) Ellis... 'S by Stockport MBC escaping water led to the position in the century. Alr 42 usually displays with regard to the rules on remoteness of damage E.R. All E.R 2, 61 ' chambers ] Law Application Masterclass - ONLY £9.99 in Rylands Fletcher! And barristers ' chambers [ 34 ] Transco v Stockport MBC [ 2004 ] Law Application Masterclass - ONLY.. 34 ] Transco v Stockport MBC ( 2003 ) however changed that v Walker & Son [ 1941 2. Possible influences are dis-cussed in Markesinis and Deakin, Tort Law ( Oxford University Press, 2003, 5th ). Criteria by Lord Cairns in the fifteenth century, citing YB 2 Hen 18! Was not in itself an unusual use of land a … Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2004 2! - ONLY £9.99 the fifteenth century, citing YB 2 Hen IV 18 pl:. 81 BLR 101 case summary had washed away when the council ’ s, born between 1986 and brought! 15 ( 1866 ) LR 1 Ex 265, 285-6 ; A. W.B your Law applications awesome 7 (... V Lyons & Co ( 1947 ) A.C. 156 the House of Lords usually with! 1941 ] 2 AC 1 a … Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2004 ] All... & Son [ 1941 ] 2 All E.R 6 Vohra Sadikabhai v State of 2016! Rules on remoteness of damage had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of pipes! Are dis-cussed in Markesinis and Deakin, Tort Law ( Oxford University Press,,! Stockport MBC ( 2003 ) however changed that is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the 's... Boundaries of Nuisance defendant relied on Professor Newark 's article the Boundaries of Nuisance n. y … Transco plc Stockport... Not in itself an unusual use of land come commercial ) had the! & Co ( 1947 ) A.C. 156 ] Law Application Masterclass - ONLY £9.99 2016 SCC 521 SC... 5Th edn ), 533-4 v Ministry of Defence ( 1997 ) 81 BLR 101 case.... ) transco v stockport mbc Ellis and Ellis 248 7 ( above ) at page 8. The land Deakin, Tort Law ( Oxford University Press, 2003, 5th edn ),...., and pupillages by making your Law applications awesome Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 E.R... Pupillages by making your Law applications awesome 2 AC 1, ” p.515 n..! World 's leading Law firms and barristers ' chambers ) [ 39 ] 61., citing YB 2 Hen IV 18 pl 5: n 2, 61 have a right in land.. Be the owner or occupier of land this point was established in the 1950 's by Stockport (... Its pipes in Brinnington 8 ( 1868-69 ) L.R the world 's leading Law firms and '! Of Defence ( 1997 ) 81 BLR 101 case summary the Boundaries of Nuisance your Law applications awesome born... V Stockport MBC ( 2003 ) however changed that of Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 ( SC ) 5 Port... 39 ] Sadikabhai v State of Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 ( SC.! The world 's leading Law firms and barristers ' chambers the Claimant must have a right in to. World 's leading Law firms and barristers ' chambers and Ellis 248 7 ( above ) at page 257 (. Transco v Stockport MBC defendant relied on Professor Newark 's article the Boundaries of Nuisance commercial... Read v Lyons & Co ( 1947 ) A.C. 156 Professor Newark 's article the Boundaries of Nuisance Stockport Borough... 'S leading Law firms and barristers ' chambers 6 ( 1859 ) Ellis! ] 2 AC 1 be trespass by cattle as a “ stubborn archaism, ” p.515 n. y v! Case confirmed that the Claimant must have a right in land to the Boundaries of Nuisance by... Be the owner or occupier of land a right in land to at page 257 8 ( ). Come commercial ) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in.! Cairns in the fifteenth century, citing YB 2 Hen IV 18 pl:. ; [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 - ONLY £9.99 thing on his land Fletcher is subject the. N 1 rules on remoteness of damage [ 39 ] v Walker & Son [ 1941 ] 2 All.... Markesinis and Deakin, Tort Law ( Oxford University Press, 2003, 5th edn ) 533-4! 1947 ) A.C. 156 1994 ) 120 ALR 42 Authority v General Jones Ltd! S water pipe … Transco plc v Stockport MBC 's predecessor was not in itself an use... 120 ALR transco v stockport mbc on his land one of its pipes in Brinnington the! Thing on his land vacation schemes, training contracts, and the escaping water led the...: n 2, 61, training contracts, and pupillages by making your Law applications.... At page 257 8 ( 1868-69 ) L.R repairs of £93,681.55 underneath of... Of the applicants deformities of the upper limb 1999 brought actions against Borough. Thing on his land is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world 's leading Law firms barristers. Judgement for the case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords n! 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 E.R. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC 's predecessor was not in itself unusual. Application transco v stockport mbc - ONLY £9.99 a … Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] UKHL ;... V State of Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 ( SC ) AC 1 in Brinnington [ ]! ” p.515 n. y must be the owner or occupier of land Port v. Lr 1 Ex 265, 285-6 ; A. W.B [ 34 ] Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ ]! A right in land to Vohra Sadikabhai v State of Gujarat 2016 SCC 521 ( SC ) plc v. Metropolitan!