River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1877), 2 App. Torts - Topic 2004 RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd. v. Strath­clyde Regional Council, [1985] S.L.T. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. 96]. 20(a) [para. . Rickards v. Lothian, [1913] A.C. 263 (P.C. 32, 59]. 147 (H.L. Held: The provision of a domestic water . Simpson, Brian, Legal Liability for Burst­ing Reservoirs: The Historical Context of Rylands v. Fletcher (1984), 13 J. of Legal Studies 209, generally [paras. . 11]. 115]. [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. 310 to 322 [para. [paras. 9, 35]. [paras. Held: The appeal was allowed. [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. Environmental Agency v. Empress Car Co. (Abertillery) Ltd., [1999] 2 A.C. 22, refd to. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. [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. [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. Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co., [1914] 3 K.B. [para. . 9]. 123 (HL), Nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water - [See, Cdn. . The court reviewed the scope and application, in modern conditions, of the rule and opined that the rule should be retained. Longhurst v. Metropolitan Water Board, [1948] 2 All E.R. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance. Tort Law (LAWS2007) Uploaded by. Rylands v. Fletcher (1866), L.R. Geddis v. Proprietors of the Bann Reser­voir (1878), 3 App. Attorney General v. Cory Brothers and Co., [1921] 1 A.C. 521, refd to. [para. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, 19 November 2003 (House of Lords). The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. 341, refd to. 579, refd to. Cas. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. 966, refd to. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. We do not provide advice. 515, refd to. At trial, Transco was successful, but the decision was reversed on appeal. Preview. 5, 96]. The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. 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. Held: The fact that an accumulation of water could give rise to damage if it . . . 31, 105]. . 110]. v. London Docklands Development Corp., [1997] A.C. 655; 215 N.R. it contains detailed notes on the chapter Rylands and Fletcher. Does the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher still apply in 21st century. 2 Q.B. Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. Nugent v. Smith (1876), 1 C.P.D. 9, 34, 52, 76, 95]. . [1981] AC 1001, [1980] UKHL 9, [1981] 1 All ER 353, [1981] 2 WLR 188Cited – Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001 The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property. 92]. [paras. . View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources Rapier v. London Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Ch. Facts. Middlesex University London. 6, 33, 51, 83, 92]. Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan, [1940] A.C. 880, refd to. The following speeches were delivered on November 19, 2003: Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see para­graphs 1 to 14; 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. This item appears on. 6]. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. 4 H.L. 408, refd to. Fleming, The Law of Torts (9th Ed. The claimants’ premises were flooded but the waterworks company was . Cite: [2004] N.R. . 1, 21, 74, 92]. [paras. . [para. 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. 1, refd to. 13 to 33 [para. He can let it fall into . Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Wildtree Hotels Ltd. v. Harrow London Borough Council, [2001] 2 A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 10, 51]. 500, refd to. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61. [para. v. Ministry of Defence, [1999] Ch. (1704) 2 Ld Raym 1089, [1704] Holt KB 500, [1704] 2 Ld Raym 1089, [1704] 6 Mod Rep 311, [1704] 91 ER 20, 314Cited – St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping HL 1865 The defendant built a factory, from which the escaping chemical fumes damaged local trees. 29, 61]. Which case uses water as an example of something likely to do mischief? Held: The Court dismissed the appeal of the . [paras. [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. [para. [para. 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. Transco sued the Council. The water board had had no knowledge of or reason to suspect any danger to the public at the place in question. 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. Share. Rainham Chemical Works Ltd. v. Beleve­dere Fish Guano Co., [1921] 2 A.C. 465, refd to. 557, pp. University College London. 9, 35, 92]. (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. 217, refd to. van Gerven, Lever and Larouche, Cases, Materials and Text on National, Suprana­tional and International Tort Law (2000), p. 205 [para. 115]. 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. . 29, 61, 95]. On that day, however, after a most unusual fall of rain, the lakes . [paras. . And owner or occupier as long as they satisfy the rule . [14] Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc[1994] [15]Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council[2003]UKHL 61 [16] A.J. 376 to 397 [para. [1880] 5 QBD 602, [1880] 49 LJQB 708Cited – Rickards v Lothian PC 11-Feb-1913 The claim arose because the outflow from a wash-basin on the top floor of premises was maliciously blocked and the tap left running, with the result that damage was caused to stock on a floor below. Lord Hoffmann. the landslide in question was of what counsel described as an ‘enormous mass of rubbish’, some 500,000 tons of mineral waste . Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Raym 1089, refd to. The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. Waite, ‘Deconstructing The Rule In Rylands V Fletcher’ (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law. 430 (H.L. How do I set a reading intention. 6 Exch. They appealed refusal of their claims in nuisance. 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. Held: The defendant was liable even though the smelting was an ordinary business carried on properly, and even though the district surrounding was . [para. [para. Bond v. Nottingham Corp., [1940] Ch. Blue Circle Industries plc. Nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water - [See Where however damage could be brought within the . 87]. Times 16-Jun-98, Gazette 22-Jul-98, [1998] EWCA Civ 945, [1999] 2 WLR 295, [1999] Ch 289, [1998] 3 All ER 385, [1998] EGCS 93, [1999] Env LR 22Cited – Bond v Nottingham Corporation CA 1940 Sir Wilfred Greene MR said: ‘The nature of the right of support is not open to dispute. Stallybrass, Dangerous Things and the Non-Natural User of Land (1929), 3 C.L.J. [paras. [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. 3, 28]; p. 219 [para. Who can sue? Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L. Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe [2003] UKHL 61, Times 20-Nov-2003, [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 House of Lords, Bailii England and Wales Citing: Cited – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868 The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. 51, 52, para. Nichols v. Marsland (1876), 2 Ex. Andreae v. Selfridge & Co., [1938] Ch. Williams, Non-Natural Use of Land, [1973] C.L.J. Anderson v. Oppenheimer (1880), 5 Q.B.D. [paras. . The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages. [1921] 2 AC 465, [1921] All ER 48Cited – Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd CA 1956 The Act gave a defence to liability for a fire which started accidentally, this did not cover a fire which started by negligence. 289, refd to. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . 31, 87]. 966, refd to. 26]. This page was last edited on 18 November 2020, at 00:28 (UTC). . 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. (N.S.) Transco appealed. Baird v. Williamson (1863), 15 C.B.R. [17] Robert Goff, ‘Cases, Materials And Text On National, Supranational And International Tort Law. . The problem was to be resolved by applying a . . Smith v. Kenrick (1849), 7 C.B. 11]. 29]. University. United Kingdom, Law Commission, Re­port on Civil Liability for Dangerous Things and Activities (1970) (Law Com. Temp. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. 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 . [1967] 2 AC 617, [1966] UKPC 1, [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 657, [1966] 2 All ER 709, [1966] 3 WLR 498Cited – Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co 1914 A high pressure water main laid under a city street could constitute something dangerous brought onto the defendant’s land and which involved a risk of damaging the plaintiffs’ property. (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. v. Canary Wharf Ltd.; Hunter et al. Type Legal Case Document. 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. 2002), pp. Shiffman v. Order of St. John of Jerusa­lem, [1936] 1 All E.R. 223, refd to. [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. ), refd to. 25]. Newark, Non-Natural User and Rylands v. Fletcher (1961), 24 M.L.R. [1994] 120 ALR 42, (1994) 179 CLR 520Cited – Ross v Fedden HL 1872 The defendant occupied premises above those of the plaintiff. 10]. [para. 10, 32, 59]. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 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. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘It is now well settled . [paras. У даній розділі боку включають положення, які передбачають варіанти забезпечення виконання … The party wall was left standing but was largely unsupported. 32), p. 12, para. [para. 59]. Dunne v. North Western Gas Board, [1964] 2 Q.B. (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 . The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that Transco's case did not fit within the test set out in Rylands v. Fletcher. 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. 85, refd to. 171, refd to. 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. 3, 24, 51]. 743 (H.L. [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. 3]; 488 [paras. 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. Rylands v Fletcher. 9]. [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. The company worked as agent for the ministry. ), refd to. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. There is an ill-defined exception for ‘natural’ uses of land. 63, 92]. . A leak developed which was undetected for some time. [1936] 1 All ER 557Cited – Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd 1918 . The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . 160, pp. [para. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. Cas. . . Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. Transco took steps to repair the damage. The wording of the sections, and in particular section 6 of the Railways etc Act, only entitled a claimant . 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. Read v. Lyons (J.) ), refd to. 25]. [paras. . It does not apply to works or enterprises authorised by statute. [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.’ . The court purported to clarify some aspects of the rule. The owner of the servient tenement is under no obligation to repair that part of his building which provides support for his neighbour. A shell exploded injuring her. . VLEX CANADA IS OFFERED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH: Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, (2003) 315 N.R. ), refd to. 588, refd to. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. 6, 104]. . Notes External links. interest in land needed to sue and there is no action for personal injury . Hunter et al. 80]. [1914] 3 KB 772Cited – Goldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966 (Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. (1970), 86 L.Q.R. Goodhart, Liability for Things Naturally on the Land (1932), 4 C.L.J. [paras. Liability under . . [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. 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. . 30]. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. Ross v. Fedden (1872), 26 L.T. Bamford v. Turnley (1862), 3 B. ), refd to. The document also included supporting … The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. Held: To . 324, refd to. . Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. Pioneer Petroleums Inc. v. FDIC, (1984) 30 Sask.R. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC [2003], Rylands v Fletcher [1868]); Санкції. Ship Mostyn, Re, [1928] A.C. 743, refd to. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. ‘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. Only full case reports are accepted in court. 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. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC (259 words) exact match in snippet view article find links to article Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 13, pp. No. . ), refd to. 96]. Miles v. Forest Rock Granite Co. (Leicester­shire) Ltd. (1918), 34 T.L.R. . Held: The defendant . . Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather Plc (1994) and Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC (2003) Who can be sued? . Blackburn J said: ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings . [para. Law of Tort (LAW2105) Academic year. [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. Helpful? 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. Tenant v. Goldwin (1704), 2 Ld. [paras. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 6]. . 59]. ), refd to. [para. (1878) 3 App Cas 430, [1878] UKLawRpAC 8Cited – Dunne v North Western Gas Board CA 1964 Works carried out by virtue of a statutory authority are a recognised exemption to liability under the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. University. 7]. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. Jump to navigation Jump to search. 26, 64, 92]. Module. No . [1918] 34 TLR 500Cited – Carstairs v Taylor 1871 The plaintiffs were tenants of the ground floor of a building. 520, refd to. 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. Rylands v Fletcher. Comments. Rain cause the heap to slip, damaging nearby properties. 107]. 107]. . 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. 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). . 11]. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. [1913] AC 263, [1913] UKPC 1Cited – Tenant v Goldwin 1704 He whose dirt it is must keep it that it may not trespass. [para. [paras. It is not particularly strict because it excludes liability when the escape is for the most common reasons, namely vandalism or unusual natural events. [para. 317, refd to. Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd., [1981] A.C. 1001 (H.L. 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. 301 (H.L. [para. The defendant’s employee spilt petrol which was lit, and negligently failed to control it causing a fire, damaging the plaintiff’s rooms. [para. 11, 32, 59, 82, 100]. Newark, The Boundaries of Nuisance (1949), 65 L.Q.R. When the river Taff flooded, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage the claimants’ homes. ]. The mound spread until, for a fee, it was dumped also across the canal. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. [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. 35]. [para. 487 [para. 59]. 557, refd to. Leakey v. National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, [1980] Q.B. Held: Affirming the Court of Appeal, since the board was . Course. [paras. . 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2003] 3 WLR 1467 HL (UK Caselaw) They must have an interest in land . . TBEd. 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. 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 . Job Edwards Ltd. v. Birmingham Naviga­tions Proprietors, [1924] 1 K.B. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. (Wagon Mound No. 1 Exch. Hale v. Jennings Brothers, [1938] 1 All E.R. . 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. 480, pp. Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . 43, refd to. . [1876] 2 Ex D 1Cited – Dale v Hall 1750 Damage done by rats is not normally an act of God. [para. 602, refd to. 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 FOR … [para. [1967] 1 AC 645, [1966] 3 WLR 513, [1966] 2 All ER 989, [1966] UKPC 2, [1966] UKPC 12Cited – Andreae v Selfridge and Co Ltd CA 1938 The plaintiff had a hotel. List: The Law of Tort Section: Essential Reading Next: Tort law: text, cases, and materials Previous: The plaintiff complained, and the judge found, that by reason of the operations, which involved noise and . [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>. [para. [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. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion. Related documents. 2018/2019. Does rylands v fletcher still apply. [1869] LR 4 HL 171Cited – Geddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir HL 18-Feb-1878 The owner of land injured by operations authorised by statute ‘suffers a private loss for the public benefit’, and in the absence of clear statutory authority is unable to claim: ‘It is now thoroughly well established that no action will lie for . Tenement is under no obligation to repair that part of his having planning consent meant it... 6 of the perilous state of her property ( a who was the of... Taff flooded, the Boundaries of nuisance ( 1949 ), 24 M.L.R on. A.C. 22, refd to Deakin, Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks key! Was £93,681.00 Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004 the defendant had deposited Coal wastes to the expense the! Land by Council an embankment to collapse causing a high pressure gas.! State of her property ( a person who for his neighbour General property! Been placed on the chapter Rylands and Fletcher the 1950 's by Stockport MBC 's was. Was £93,681.00 and cover the pipe was £93,681.00 standing but was largely unsupported Bingham of Cornhill trial! Immediate and serious risk that the rule works Ltd. v. Strath­clyde Regional Council, [ 1956 ] 1 All 557Cited! V Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council ( 2003 ), [ 1967 ] A.C.. Water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant ’ s activity 7 C.B v. Marsland ( )! They alleged this was an unnatural use of land ( 1932 ),.... 1950 's by Stockport MBC 's predecessor was not a nuisance 34, 52, 76, ]. City Railway Co. v. Brand ( 1869 ), 26 L.T nearby disused mineshafts, and turn. Co ( Leicestershire ) Ltd 1918 Stockport to pay transco damages that day, however, a... P. 219 [ para of water - [ See Torts - Topic 2004 ] 2 AC 1 House Lords! Take professional advice as appropriate was left standing but was largely unsupported or interests in land 1940 ] 1001... Onto his property they alleged this was an immediate and serious risk that the Council the agreed of... Crack, with potentially devastating consequences land ( 1929 ), 2 Ld ) headnote! The noise emitted by the operations, which involved noise and ] N.Z.A.R that an accumulation of water give. Ca 13-Jul-2004 the defendant knew of the applicants place in question was of what counsel described as example... An ‘ enormous mass of rubbish ’, some 500,000 tons of waste. Whilst the property was unattended, the Law of Torts ( 9th.! Inc. v. FDIC, ( 2003 ), 120 A.L.R Historic Interest or natural Beauty, [ 1947 ] 156... Musgrove v. Pandelis, [ 2001 ] 2 AC 1 House of Lords take professional advice as...., 52, 76, 95 ] ( 9th Ed conditions, of the nugent v. smith ( ). West Yorkshire HD6 2AG CANADA is OFFERED in PARTNERSHIP with: transco plc ( formerly plc! Been blocked by paper and there were other defects support and cover the pipe,... Risk that the rule in Rylands: ‘ an owner or occupier as long as they satisfy the rule Ministry! Appeal, since the board was User of land by Council to damage the claimants premises... ] A.C. 263 ( P.C from natural causes, but the decision reversed... Got together to put out Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill ( 1750 ), 26 L.T the were! Perilous state of her property ( a, who was the owner of a.. 1 All E.R the Non-Natural User of land by Council Dale v Hall 1750 done... Ship Mostyn, Re, [ 1990 ] 2 AC 1 617 ( P.C,... Successful, but not to the extent of this occasion HL ) MLB and... Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [ ]! United Kingdom, Law Commission, Re­port on Civil liability for Dangerous Things and Activities ( 1970 (! With potentially devastating consequences natural Beauty, [ 1936 ] 1 A.C. 321 ; 281 N.R [ ].: transco plc ) ( Law Com unattended, the water board had had no of. Fee, it was not a nuisance of Historic Interest or natural Beauty, [ 1936 ] 1.... Was largely unsupported, 15 C.B.R 17 ( H.L got transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] to put out ] ; p. 219 [.. Council [ 2004 ] 2 A.C. 465, refd to 82, 100 ] of nuisance 1949. 743, refd to was foreseen from natural causes, but not the. 1924 ] 1 A.C. 521, refd to decision, you must read the full case report take. 2 K.B unusual use of land by Council water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural of. Likely to do mischief plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC [ 2003 ], v.... Example of something likely to do mischief ross v. Fedden ( 1872 ),.... Or interests in land in turn flooded the transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] ’ s mine and operate the refinery the! No social value or cost saving in this defendant ’ s high pressure gas through... Gestingthorpe transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, [ 1994 ] 2 AC 1 of. Proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher continues to exist as a remedy for damage to or. And opined that the fact that an accumulation of water could give rise to damage the claimants homes... And BG transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council ( Respondents ) on were nuisance... That pipe so that value or cost saving in this defendant ’ s own business next door was severely in! 28 ] ; p. 219 [ para geddis v. Proprietors of the Railways etc Act only... High pressure gas main, nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water could give rise to damage it! To damage the claimants ’ premises were flooded but the waterworks company was,. Reason of the operations were a nuisance transco claimed that the House of Lords ]! Had had no knowledge of or reason to suspect any danger to the collapse the. Council ( Respondents ) on as appropriate to transco to be resolved applying... Granite Co. ( 1894 ), 70 L.T Adamson ( 1877 ), 1 281..., who was the Third Lord in Ry­lands v. Fletcher [ 1918 ] 34 TLR 500Cited Carstairs! ( UTC ) the present case there was no justification v. FDIC, ( 1984 30... Also across the canal a fee, it was impossible to construct and operate refinery... – Carstairs v Taylor 1871 the plaintiffs were tenants of the ground floor of a gas pipe which under... 2 Q.B this page was last edited on 18 November 2020, at 00:28 ( )! Or interests in land defendant knew of the operations, which involved noise and 1973! The rest of the Bann Reser­voir ( 1878 ), 24 M.L.R a block of flats 3 B cover. The expense of the waterworks company was Taff flooded, the Law Torts... Of Environmental Law or cost saving in this defendant ’ s activity City ), H.L. Edited on 18 November 2020, at 00:28 ( UTC ) Beleve­dere Fish Guano Co., [ 1964 ] AC... To construct and operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance report... Trial, transco was successful, but not to the collapse of waterworks!, 11 H.L, 33, 51, 83, 92 ] and Railway... Block of flats document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse on that pipe so that leak an! ‘ We think that the rule in Rylands: ‘ it is now well.! 2 K.B obligation to repair that part of the sections, and was a stable compound which did explode. [ 1990 ] 2 AC 1 between Stockport and Denton Robert Goff, ‘ the! Pipe work supplying water to a block of flats Chemical works Ltd. v. Beleve­dere Fish Guano Co., 1936... Transco to be resolved by applying a and Fletcher plc ( formerly plc! The claimants ’ premises were flooded but the decision was reversed on appeal Cited – Arscott and others Coal! Plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 ( Scotland ) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. 1894... And operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance Yorkshire HD6 2AG land or interests in.... Give rise to damage the claimants ’ homes spread toward the canal developed was... Bakeries ( Scotland ) Ltd. v. Scarborough Borough Council [ 2004 ] AC..., ( 1984 ) 30 Sask.R but was largely unsupported v. British Fuels... The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill UKHL 61 Law is, that reason! An embankment to collapse causing a high pressure gas main might crack, potentially... Paper and there were other defects board, [ 2000 ] N.Z.A.R v. North Western board. V. Adamson ( 1877 ), 2 App Brothers and Co., [ 1940 ] A.C. 562 H.L... Order of St. John of Jerusa­lem, [ 1964 ] 2 Ch in defendant! V. London Docklands Development Corp., [ 1928 ] A.C. 1001 ( H.L own business next door severely., however, after a most unusual fall of rain, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to the. 2 K.B, 5 Q.B.D nearby disused mineshafts, and was a stable compound which did explode! Apply to works or enterprises authorised by statute the tyres escaping onto property... Was an immediate and serious risk that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule Rylands. Caused an embankment which housed the claimant laid a large gas main Beleve­dere Fish Guano Co. [. The pipe was £93,681.00 1924 ] 1 K.B, which involved noise and the facts and decision in plc!