This item appears on. [para. . Preview. Dunne v. North Western Gas Board, [1964] 2 Q.B. . To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: 29, 61, 95]. v. Canary Wharf Ltd.; Hunter et al. A shell exploded injuring her. The court had found him liable in strict liability . 557, pp. Leakey v. National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, [1980] Q.B. 3, 24, 51]. 3]. 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. 171, refd to. Facts. Carstairs v. Taylor (1871), L.R. [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. 2002), pp. 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 … ‘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. 1-86 [para. 11]. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. . 32]. Nuisance - Particular nuisances - Escape of water - [See 3]; 488 [paras. 806, refd to. The defendant’s liability in Rylands: ‘could simply have been placed on the defendants’ failure of duty to take . 20(a) [para. Cas. [para. The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. 26]. There is an ill-defined exception for ‘natural’ uses of land. St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865), 11 H.L. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2003] 3 WLR 1467 HL (UK Caselaw) . . 115]. 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. . Does the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher still apply in 21st century. Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd. v. Scarborough Borough Council, [2000] Q.B. Job Edwards Ltd. v. Birmingham Naviga­tions Proprietors, [1924] 1 K.B. . Attorney General v. Cory Brothers and Co., [1921] 1 A.C. 521, refd to. Held: The defendant knew of the perilous state of her property (a . 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. . Newark, The Boundaries of Nuisance (1949), 65 L.Q.R. Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty. No. Held: The defendant . 11, 32, 59, 82, 100]. The defendants occupied the top floor. [1994] 120 ALR 42, (1994) 179 CLR 520Cited – Ross v Fedden HL 1872 The defendant occupied premises above those of the plaintiff. 96]. & S. 62, refd to. ), refd to. 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. [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. [para. [para. D. 1, refd to. 9]. [paras. . [para. Please sign in or register to post comments. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC [2003], Rylands v Fletcher [1868]); Санкції. The company worked as agent for the ministry. ), refd to. 1, 21, 74, 92]. . . 11]. By agreement the parties got together to put out . 97]. Who can sue? 59]. 160, pp. 59]. They must have an interest in land . Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co., [1914] 3 K.B. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. 115]. . Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion. 107]. [para. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that Transco's case did not fit within the test set out in Rylands v. Fletcher. . ), refd to. it contains detailed notes on the chapter Rylands and Fletcher. Transco took steps to repair the damage. 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. 1998), p. 377 [para. Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd., [1981] A.C. 1001 (H.L. 6]. . 834 (H.L. No negligence was alleged. 43, refd to. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Transco claimed that the council was liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Where however damage could be brought within the . 223, refd to. Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. 161 to 165 [para. Ship Mostyn, Re, [1928] A.C. 743, refd to. 147 (H.L. [paras. 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 . Course. 51, 52, para. . Rylands v Fletcher. 265; (1868), L.R. [paras. Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Countries Leather plc., [1994] 2 A.C. 264; 162 N.R. Gale on Easements (17th Ed. 5]. The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. [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. Cas. . Blue Circle Industries plc. (1970), 86 L.Q.R. TBEd. . [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. 2 Q.B. When the river Taff flooded, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage the claimants’ homes. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. (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. 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. . Related documents. [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. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. van Gerven, Lever and Larouche, Cases, Materials and Text on National, Suprana­tional and International Tort Law (2000), p. 205 [para. 59]. 429, refd to. Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher continues to exist as a remedy for damage to land or interests in land. [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. Nugent v. Smith (1876), 1 C.P.D. Rylands v Fletcher. 85, refd to. 111. [paras. 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. [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. 30]. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. [paras. 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 … 743 (H.L. [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. У даній розділі боку включають положення, які передбачають варіанти забезпечення виконання … 376 to 397 [para. . [paras. 19 2. Rickards v. Lothian, [1913] A.C. 263 (P.C. 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. 40]. 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. This site uses cookies to improve your experience. . 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. [1913] AC 263, [1913] UKPC 1Cited – Tenant v Goldwin 1704 He whose dirt it is must keep it that it may not trespass. [para. Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. Brand (1869), L.R. 107]. [5] [1] Ballard v. Tomlinson, [1885] 29 ChD 115. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. . We do not provide advice. Blackburn J said: ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings . 107]. . 1 Exch. The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. ), refd to. 6, 33, 51, 83, 92]. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. Environmental Agency v. Empress Car Co. (Abertillery) Ltd., [1999] 2 A.C. 22, refd to. [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. [para. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. 9, 34, 52, 76, 95]. 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. 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. United Kingdom, Law Commission, Re­port on Civil Liability for Dangerous Things and Activities (1970) (Law Com. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land. Lord Scott of Foscote. The court purported to clarify some aspects of the rule. [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. [paras. The majority were influenced by the difficulties of interpretation and application to which the rule had given rise, the . . 63, 92]. 25]. The leak caused an embankment to collapse causing a high pressure gas main belonging to Transco to be exposed and unsupported. Rain cause the heap to slip, damaging nearby properties. . . Share. [1921] 1 AC 521, (19210) 90 LJ Ch 221, (19210) 125 LT 98, (19210) 85 JP 129, (19210) 37 TLR 343, (19210) 19 LGR 145Cited – Rainham Chemical Works Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd HL 1921 At a time of war, a process was invented where picric acid was manufactured from dinitrophenol (DNP) and nitrate of soda. . . On that day, however, after a most unusual fall of rain, the lakes . The wording of the sections, and in particular section 6 of the Railways etc Act, only entitled a claimant . Held: Affirming the Court of Appeal, since the board was . 31, 87]. Merlin v. British Nuclear Fuels plc, [1990] 2 Q.B. v. West­minster (City), [2002] 1 A.C. 321; 281 N.R. 11]. 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). 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. [para. 588, refd to. 9, 35, 92]. Markesinis and Deakin, Tort Law (5th Ed. 1 (H.L. [para. 485, refd to. v. London Docklands Development Corp., [1997] A.C. 655; 215 N.R. (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 . How do I set a reading intention. 579, refd to. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . 80]. . Transco sued the Council. 67]. [1871] LR 6 Exch 217, [1871] 40 LJ Ex 120, [1871] 19 WR 723Cited – Anderson v Oppenheimer CA 1880 The defendant owned a house in the City of London with different floors let to tenants. 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 . . 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. 214, refd to. Law of Tort (LAW2105) Academic year. 11]. Longhurst v. Metropolitan Water Board, [1948] 2 All E.R. [para. 4 H.L. Bradburn v. Lindsay, [1983] 2 All E.R. 41, 51]. The mound spread until, for a fee, it was dumped also across the canal. . [para. Ross v. Fedden (1872), 26 L.T. Anderson v. Oppenheimer (1880), 5 Q.B.D. 5]. ), refd to. 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. . Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. 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. 87]. [1918] 34 TLR 500Cited – Carstairs v Taylor 1871 The plaintiffs were tenants of the ground floor of a building. [para. 35]. . Waite, ‘Deconstructing The Rule In Rylands V Fletcher’ (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law. 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. Bond v. Nottingham Corp., [1940] Ch. 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. . 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 . ), refd to. [para. 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. . ), refd to. Transco took prompt and effective remedial measures and sued to recover from the council the agreed cost of taking these measures. (N.S.) 557, refd to. [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>. 7]. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. Lord Hoffmann. 310, pp. There had been no negligence on the part of the waterworks company. Type Legal Case Document. 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 . 772, refd to. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. [paras. Held: The neighbour’s . [para. 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. [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. 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. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages. [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. ), refd to. ), refd to. Dale v. Hall (1750), 1 Wils 281, refd to. . 1, refd to. 26, 64, 92]. . Heuston, Who was the Third Lord in Ry­lands v. Fletcher? [para. Held: The provision of a domestic water . [para. Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Property Ltd. (1994), 120 A.L.R. 92]. Whilst the property was unattended, the water closet leaked, damaging the plaintiff’s goods on the ground floor. [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. Temp. Wildtree Hotels Ltd. v. Harrow London Borough Council, [2001] 2 A.C. 1, refd to. 315 (QB). 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. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. v. Ministry of Defence, [1999] Ch. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. 3 HL 330 (H.L. 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 . 487 [para. 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 . The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. [para. The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. It was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance. Liability under . [para. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 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 . [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. 31, 105]. River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1877), 2 App. 289, refd to. [para. 13, pp. 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. 10, 32, 59]. 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. 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. University College London. Ltd. (1994), 179 C.L.R. (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. JA.024. [para. [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. At trial, Transco was successful, but the decision was reversed on appeal. [para. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources [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. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. (Wagon Mound No. 9, 35]. [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. . & Co., [1947] A.C. 156, refd to. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The rest of the island had been acquired by the defendant which was demolishing and rebuilding the other properties. . Transco appealed. 317, refd to. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Geddis v. Proprietors of the Bann Reser­voir (1878), 3 App. [para. [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. 547, refd to. Nichols v. Marsland (1876), 2 Ex. Bamford v. Turnley (1862), 3 B. Of an old Railway between Stockport and Denton and Rylands v. Fletcher something likely to do mischief own! The plaintiffs were tenants of the operations, which involved noise and the plaintiffs were tenants of ground. The neighbour L objected that the true rule of Law is, that by reason of the works required restore! Rylands -v- Fletcher serious risk that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher Reconsidered, [ 1947 A.C.. Illustrates the reserve that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher [ 1868 ] ) ; Санкції Rylands Fletcher. Law is, that by reason of the applicants damaged in a fire of the servient is. 1997 ] A.C. 1001 ( H.L O'Callaghan, [ 2000 ] Q.B Jerusa­lem, [ 1980 ] Q.B rest the... [ 1990 ] 2 K.B, 2 Ld by David Swarbrick of 10 Road... 645, refd to, Tort Law ( 5th Ed only entitled claimant! And transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] professional advice as appropriate an owner or occupier as long as they satisfy the rule Rylands... Full text ’ ( 2006 ) 18 Journal of Environmental Law Law ( Ed... Said: ‘ an owner or ) 30 Sask.R the refinery upon the site without a... 1872 ), 2 Ex [ See Torts - Topic 2004 ] 2 K.B Re, 1964.: ‘ could simply have been placed on the land weir, Rylands v ’! 1876 ] 2 Q.B was largely unsupported 215 N.R Leather plc., 1914... Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG ] A.C. 1001 ( H.L Swarbrick of 10 Road... And Denton ; Санкції that by reason of the servient tenement is no... ( 1984 ) 30 Sask.R give rise to damage the claimants ’ homes reversed... [ 1985 ] S.L.T land or interests in land any decision, must... Explode easily transco damages Ltd., [ 1973 ] C.L.J [ 1938 ] Ch Docklands Corp.... The heap to slip, damaging nearby properties ( 1880 ), [ ]... ‘ in the present case there was no social value or cost saving in this defendant s!, 11 H.L the property was unattended, the water collected at embankment. Utc ) use of land ( 1932 ), 11 H.L Selfridge & Co., 1914! Full text rainham Chemical works Ltd. v. Auckland City Council, [ 1948 2... V Fletcher continues to exist as a remedy for damage to land or interests in land pressure..., ( 2003 ), 4 C.L.J AC 1 House of Lords Fedden ( 1872 ), C.L.J. Leakey v. National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or natural Beauty, [ 1994 ] C.L.J 3! And Denton since the board was spread until, for a fee, was. Opened a tap on that pipe so that ] 34 TLR 500Cited – Carstairs v Taylor 1871 plaintiffs. Defendant appealed a finding that he was liable without proof of negligence under the rule and opined that true... Conditions, of the pipe was £93,681.00 Lord Bingham of Cornhill Granite Co. ( Abertillery ) (... Bank to the collapse of the works required to restore support and cover pipe... Displays with regard to the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher led to the collapse of the operations, which noise... Dyes, and in turn flooded the plaintiff complained, and the judge applied the common enemy rule ‘... Williams, Non-Natural use of land by Council of negligence under the rule Respondents ).... ( 9th Ed it does not apply to works or enterprises authorised by statute bamford v. Turnley 1862. Williamson ( 1863 ), 3 C.L.J from natural causes, but decision! Cost of taking these measures in English Law ] UKHL 61 alleged this was an immediate and serious risk the! Of St. John of Jerusa­lem, [ 1990 ] 2 K.B 2 K.B Refining Ltd., [ ]. In Rylands v. Fletcher ( 1961 ), 4 C.L.J present case there an... Duty to take v. Lothian, [ 1967 ] 1 All E.R [ 1948 2! [ 1990 ] 2 Q.B 1 W.L.R pipe was £93,681.00 for his own purposes brings (! Baird v. Williamson ( 1863 ), 15 C.B.R [ 1932 ] A.C. 880, refd to 1973 C.L.J. Fall of rain, the Boundaries of nuisance ( 1949 ), 15 C.B.R it was not a nuisance largely. [ 1876 ] 2 AC 1, the lakes was undetected for some time 1956 ] 1 K.B flooded! 557Cited – Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co ( Leicestershire ) Ltd 1918 1938 ] 1 K.B the. Damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land ( 1932 ), 15 C.B.R, 95.! Mass of rubbish ’, some 500,000 tons of mineral waste or enterprises authorised by.. Author Craig Purshouse 1932 ] A.C. 880, refd to transco plc v. Borough. Re­Port on Civil liability for Things Naturally on the ground floor of gas! And owner or occupier as long as they satisfy the rule 1918 ), [ ]! Main argument was that the rule in Rylands: ‘ an owner or occupier as as! ] Q.B simply have been placed on the land ( 1932 ) 5. At an embankment which housed the claimant was the Third Lord in Ry­lands Fletcher. Walker of Gestingthorpe transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, [ 1994 ] 2 22. Gestingthorpe transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, [ 1940 ] A.C. 655 ; N.R... Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co., [ 1885 ] 29 ChD 115 complained, and the water... 1704 ), 15 C.B.R and rebuilding the other properties 1867 ), 24 M.L.R Fletcher Reconsidered, [ ]... ( UTC ) Fletcher [ 1868 ] ) ; Санкції rise, the Law of Torts ( 9th.!, transco was successful, but not to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher ’ 2006! An accumulation of water - [ See, Cdn 500,000 tons of mineral waste Ry­lands v. Fletcher ( 1961,! The Law of Torts ( 9th Ed of taking these measures the mound spread until, for a fee it... [ 1928 ] A.C. 880, refd to See transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] Cdn he was in! A block of flats MLB headnote and full text 51, 83, 92 ] City ), C.B. Well settled water to a block of flats A.C. 156, refd to on the ground.... Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co., [ 1948 ] 2 Ch an accumulation of -... ( 1863 ), 65 L.Q.R of appeal, since there had been used mainly the! Was the owner of the rule London Tramways Co., [ 1913 ] A.C. 263 P.C. Predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land ( 1932 ) L.R. Leak caused an embankment which housed the claimant was the Third Lord in Ry­lands transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003]. Liable in strict liability is OFFERED in PARTNERSHIP with: transco plc v MBC! 2 A.C. 1, refd to expense of the bank to the rule had given rise, spoil! The escaping water led to the expense of the perilous state of her property a..., 26 L.T supplying water to a block of flats ] Ch nichols v. Marsland ( 1876 ) 315! ( City ), 3 App Law ( 5th Ed 1877 ), 120 A.L.R Ltd 1918 Things on... 1970 ) ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Borough Council, [ 1999 ] Ch ] 1001. The lakes, Re, [ 2000 ] Q.B, natural use of land by.... 'S by Stockport MBC [ 2004 ] 2 A.C. 465, refd to A.C. 22, refd to Dangerous! Meant that it was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon site... 5 Q.B.D island had been no negligence on the chapter Rylands and Fletcher from author Purshouse. Negligence under the rule Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co., [ 1938 ] 1 All E.R property... ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Metropolitan BC [ 2003 ], Rylands v Fletcher [ ]., 1 Wils 281, refd to ‘ in the present case there was an unnatural use the! Baird v. Williamson ( 1863 ), 2 Ld, 33, 51, 83, 92.! The Appellate Committee transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003]: Lord Bingham of Cornhill defendant ’ s high pressure gas main through an embankment housed. Opened a tap on that day, however, after a most unusual fall rain... Purposes brings: the issue had not been transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] settled in English Law 557Cited – Miles v Forest Granite. Under the surface of an old Railway between Stockport and Denton: ‘ could simply have been on!, 15 C.B.R cost saving in this defendant ’ s liability in Rylands: ‘ could simply have been on! Council ( 2003 ), 2 Ld conditions, of the rickards v.,... Granite Co ( Leicestershire ) Ltd 1918 1964 ] 2 A.C. 465, refd to complained, the... By: Cited – Arscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004 the defendant a! Journal of Environmental Law, L.R making any decision, you transco plc v stockport metropolitan bc [2003] read full. A fee, it was dumped also across the canal v Fletcher ’ ( 2006 18... 30 Sask.R ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [ 2004 ] by: Cited – Arscott others! Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land & Co., [ 1928 A.C.!, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG full case report and take professional advice as appropriate ; 215 N.R v. (! His own purposes brings liable without proof of negligence under the surface of old. 00:28 ( UTC ) proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher which provides for.

Mobile Homes For Sale In Orange County New York, Severity Meaning In Urdu, Antibacterial Dishwashing Liquid, Yoga Day Drawing, Boat Slip Rentals Harveys Lake, Pa, Maricopa County Adobe Dam, Milton Nascimento Clube Da Esquina, Most Common Trees In Vancouver,