Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, (2003) 315 N.R. 123 (HL)

• Case Date: November 19, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 315 N.R. 123 (HL)

Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. 123 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. JA.024

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

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

November 19, 2003.

Summary:

A water pipe owned by the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council which sup­plied water to a block of flats leaked undetected for a prolonged period of time. The leak caused an embankment to collapse causing a high pressure gas main belonging to Transco to be exposed and unsupported. There was an immediate and serious risk that the gas main might crack, with potentially devastating consequences. Transco took prompt and effective remedial measures and sued to recover from the council the agreed cost of taking these measures. Transco claimed that the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. At trial, Transco was successful, but the decision was reversed on appeal. Transco appealed.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that Transco's case did not fit within the test set out in Rylands v. Fletcher. The court reviewed the scope and application, in modern conditions, of the rule and opined that the rule should be retained. The court purported to clarify some aspects of the rule.

Torts - Topic 1266

Nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water - [See Torts - Topic 2004 ].

Torts - Topic 2004

Strict liability - Application of rule in Rylands v. Fletcher - A water pipe owned by the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council which supplied water to a block of flats leaked undetected for a prolonged period of time - The leak caused an em­bankment to collapse leaving a high pres­sure gas main belonging to Transco to be exposed and unsupported - There was an immediate and serious risk that the gas main might crack, with potentially devas­tating consequences - Transco took prompt and effective remedial measures and sued to recover from the council the agreed cost of taking these measures - Transco claimed that the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher - The House of Lords affirmed that Transco's case did not fit within the test set out in Rylands v. Fletcher - The court reviewed the scope and application, in modern conditions, of the rule and opined that the rule should be retained - The court purported to clarify some aspects of the rule.

Cases Noticed:

Rylands v. Fletcher (1866), L.R. 1 Exch. 265; (1868), L.R. 3 HL 330 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 1, 21, 74, 92].

Ross v. Fedden (1872), 26 L.T. 966, refd to. [paras. 3, 24, 51].

Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Property Ltd. (1994), 120 A.L.R. 42 (H.C.), refd to. [paras. 4, 51, 81, 93].

Leakey v. National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, [1980] Q.B. 485, refd to. [paras. 5, 96].

RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd. v. Strath­clyde Regional Council, [1985] S.L.T. 214, refd to. [para. 5].

Attorney General v. Cory Brothers and Co., [1921] 1 A.C. 521, refd to. [para. 6].

Rainham Chemical Works Ltd. v. Beleve­dere Fish Guano Co., [1921] 2 A.C. 465, refd to. [paras. 6, 104].

Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Countries Leather plc., [1994] 2 A.C. 264; 162 N.R. 301 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 6, 33, 51, 83, 92].

Read v. Lyons (J.) & Co., [1947] A.C. 156, refd to. [paras. 9, 34, 52, 76, 95].

Perry v. Kendricks Transport Ltd., [1956] 1 W.L.R. 85, refd to. [para. 9].

Shiffman v. Order of St. John of Jerusa­lem, [1936] 1 All E.R. 557, refd to. [paras. 9, 35].

Miles v. Forest Rock Granite Co. (Leicester­shire) Ltd. (1918), 34 T.L.R. 500, refd to. [para. 9].

Hunter et al. v. Canary Wharf Ltd.; Hunter et al. v. London Docklands Development Corp., [1997] A.C. 655; 215 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 9, 35, 92].

Carstairs v. Taylor (1871), L.R. 6 Exch. 217, refd to. [paras. 10, 32, 59].

Ross v. Fedden (1872), 26 L.T. 966, refd to. [paras. 10, 51].

Anderson v. Oppenheimer (1880), 5 Q.B.D. 602, refd to. [para. 10].

Rickards v. Lothian, [1913] A.C. 263 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 11, 32, 59, 82, 100].

Smith v. Kenrick (1849), 7 C.B. 515, refd to. [para. 25].

Baird v. Williamson (1863), 15 C.B.R. (N.S.) 317, refd to. [para. 25].

Tenant v. Goldwin (1704), 2 Ld. Raym 1089, refd to. [para. 26].

St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865), 11 H.L. Cas. 642, refd to. [para. 26].

Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. (Wagon Mound No. 2), [1967] 1 A.C. 617 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 26, 64, 92].

Bamford v. Turnley (1862), 3 B. & S. 62, refd to. [paras. 29, 61, 95].

Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. Brand (1867), L.R. 2 Q.B. 223, refd to. [para. 29].

Wildtree Hotels Ltd. v. Harrow London Borough Council, [2001] 2 A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 29, 61].

Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. Brand (1869), L.R. 4 H.L. 171, refd to. [para. 30].

Geddis v. Proprietors of the Bann Reser­voir (1878), 3 App. Cas. 430 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30].

Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co. (1894), 70 L.T. 547, refd to. [paras. 31, 87].

Dunne v. North Western Gas Board, [1964] 2 Q.B. 806, refd to. [paras. 31, 105].

Nichols v. Marsland (1876), 2 Ex. D. 1, refd to. [paras. 32, 59].

Environmental Agency v. Empress Car Co. (Abertillery) Ltd., [1999] 2 A.C. 22, refd to. [para. 32].

Hale v. Jennings Brothers, [1938] 1 All E.R. 579, refd to. [para. 35].

Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty. Ltd. (1994), 179 C.L.R. 520, refd to. [para. 40].

RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd. v. Strath­clyde Regional Council, [1985] S.C. 17 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 41, 51].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 57, 96].

Nugent v. Smith (1876), 1 C.P.D. 423, refd to. [para. 59].

Ship Mostyn, Re, [1928] A.C. 743, refd to. [para. 59].

River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1877), 2 App. Cas. 743 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 59].

Dale v. Hall (1750), 1 Wils 281, refd to. [para. 59].

Andreae v. Selfridge & Co., [1938] Ch. 1, refd to. [para. 61].

Goldman v. Hargrave, [1967] 1 A.C. 645, refd to. [paras. 63, 92].

Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co., [1914] 3 K.B. 772, refd to. [para. 67].

Longhurst v. Metropolitan Water Board, [1948] 2 All E.R. 834 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 87].

Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd., [1981] A.C. 1001 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 87].

Delaware Mansions Ltd. et al. v. West­minster (City), [2002] 1 A.C. 321; 281 N.R. 147 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 92].

Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan, [1940] A.C. 880, refd to. [para. 95].

Job Edwards Ltd. v. Birmingham Naviga­tions Proprietors, [1924] 1 K.B. 341, refd to. [para. 96].

Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd. v. Scarborough Borough Council, [2000] Q.B. 836, refd to. [para. 96].

Rapier v. London Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 588, refd to. [para. 97].

Musgrove v. Pandelis, [1919] 2 K.B. 43, refd to. [para. 107].

Merlin v. British Nuclear Fuels plc, [1990] 2 Q.B. 557, refd to. [para. 107].

Blue Circle Industries plc. v. Ministry of Defence, [1999] Ch. 289, refd to. [para. 107].

Autex Industries Ltd. v. Auckland City Council, [2000] N.Z.A.R. 324, refd to. [para. 110].

Bond v. Nottingham Corp., [1940] Ch. 429, refd to. [para. 115].

Bradburn v. Lindsay, [1983] 2 All E.R. 408, refd to. [para. 115].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fleming, The Law of Torts (9th Ed. 1998), p. 377 [para. 7].

Gale on Easements (17th Ed. 2002), pp. 51, 52, para. 1-86 [para. 80].

Goodhart, Liability for Things Naturally on the Land (1932), 4 C.L.J. 13, pp. 13 to 33 [para. 11].

Heuston, Who was the Third Lord in Ry­lands v. Fletcher? (1970), 86 L.Q.R. 160, pp. 161 to 165 [para. 3].

Markesinis and Deakin, Tort Law (5th Ed. 2003), p. 544 [para. 7].

Newark, The Boundaries of Nuisance (1949), 65 L.Q.R. 480, pp. 487 [para. 3]; 488 [paras. 3, 27].

Newark, Non-Natural User and Rylands v. Fletcher (1961), 24 M.L.R. 557, pp. 557 to 571 [para. 11].

Simpson, Brian, Legal Liability for Burst­ing Reservoirs: The Historical Context of Rylands v. Fletcher (1984), 13 J. of Legal Studies 209, generally [paras. 3, 28]; p. 219 [para. 104].

Stallybrass, Dangerous Things and the Non-Natural User of Land (1929), 3 C.L.J. 376, pp. 376 to 397 [para. 11].

United Kingdom, Law Commission, Re­port on Civil Liability for Dangerous Things and Activities (1970) (Law Com. No. 32), p. 12, para. 20(a) [para. 5].

van Gerven, Lever and Larouche, Cases, Materials and Text on National, Suprana­tional and International Tort Law (2000), p. 205 [para. 6].

Weir, Rylands v. Fletcher Reconsidered, [1994] C.L.J. 216, generally [para. 11].

Williams, Non-Natural Use of Land, [1973] C.L.J. 310, pp. 310 to 322 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Not disclosed:

Agents:

Not disclosed.

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. The following speeches were delivered on November 19, 2003:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see para­graphs 1 to 14;

Lord Hoffmann - see paragraphs 15 to 50;

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - see paragraphs 51 to 69;

Lord Scott of Foscote - see paragraphs 70 to 91;

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe - see paragraphs 92 to 116.