Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61

Written By Nicolas Heyes

Court: House of Lords

Basic Facts: Water from a burst pipe caused an embankment collapse, exposing a gas main. Transco sued Stockport Council under Rylands v Fletcher.

Issue: Is Rylands v Fletcher applicable, or should strict liability be extended or subsumed within negligence?

Held: The court held that the council was not liable for the damage as the council’s use was a natural use of the land.

    • Lord Bingham of Cornhill: Rylands v Fletcher is not new law but an extension of nuisance. Strict liability should be limited, and negligence covers most cases of escape. The test for Rylands v Fletcher should be high, focusing on exceptionally dangerous activities.

    • Lord Hoffmann: Rylands v Fletcher applies to high-risk activities and should not be extended beyond its established principles. The water pipes were not considered to be a mischief-making thing, and the case should be resolved under negligence principles.

    • Lord Scott of Foscote: Statutory authorization for the activity (water pipes) means it does not constitute a non-natural use of land.

Nicolas Heyes
Previous

Viasystems Ltd v Thermal Transfer Ltd [2005] 4 All ER 1181
Next

Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2004] 1 AC 46