transco plc v stockport mbc

Transco sued the Council. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. Lord Hoffmann, however, remarked on the irony that had the pipe belonged to a ‘water undertaker’ s.209 Water Industry Act 1991 creates strict liability unless (with further irony) the loss is to a Gas Act 1986 company. Reference this Disclaimer: This document does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 423 3 Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [1917] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [1937] 1 All E.R. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. The orthodox view is that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of private nuisance and not a â¦ Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1 Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 18:02 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) Looking for a flexible role? Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. 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 plc v Stockport MBC. Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. Appeal from – Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Mar-2001 A water pipe serving housing passed through an embankment. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. Facts. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. 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. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: The court held that the council was not liable for the damage as the council’s use was a natural use of the land. JA.024. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Gravity. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. PLAY. John Starr | Property Law Journal | July/August 2014 #323. Case Summary Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. This caused a grave risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was costly. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2003] 3 WLR 1467 HL (UK Caselaw) We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. Cite: [2004] N.R. 1 Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 A.C. 1 at para 59, per Lord Hobhouse 2 Transco Plc v Stockport MBC and Nugent v Smith (1876) 1 C.P.D. Transco v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 (Court of Appeal). In Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 BLM acted for the successful defendant council. kieron_spoors. In-house law team, Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council, The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. The embankment eventually collapsed due to the saturation, which meant that the gas pipe was left unsupported. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. Appeal from – 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. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. Transco plc v Stockport MBC: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. Write. Tort Law - Rylands v Fletcher. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. THE SCOPE OF THE RULE IN RYLANDS v FLETCHER Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, [2003] 3 WLR 1467 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.7â8) and held that the â¦ Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.. Facts. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. The council’s use of land was not a non-natural use. Peter Coulson Q.C. Created by. 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. The document also included supporting … This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. noted in LMS Unlike the Australian High Court, whose abolition of the doctrine in Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty (1994) 179 CLR 520 was given severe doubt, their Lordships stated their purpose, to retain the rule, while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose; and to restate it so as to achieve as much certainty and clarity as is attainable, recognising that new factual situations are bound to arise posing difficult questions on the boundary of the rule, wherever that is drawn. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. The water which leaks from this pipe causes the railway embankment to collapse, as it does this it exposes a gas mane which incurs cost causes the railway embankment to collapse, as it does this it o The defendant was not liable. Council not liable; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural. o ‘it is well arguable that it does not exclude the possibility that a duty of care may be owed as well’. 765 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [1941] 2 All E.R. The document also included supporting â¦ 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 … The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Transco took steps to repair the damage. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 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 â¦ Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. 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 … Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] Evidence The local council used a pipe to provide the houses situated close to it with water. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Back. Cite: [2004] N.R. In that time the water had been leaking considerably (as the pipe was large) and had saturated at the embankment where the Claimant’s gas pipe was. Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] o The defendant’s water pipe burst, which caused the weakening of a bank. In Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61, [2004] 2 A.C. 1, at [39], Lord Hoffmann was little surprised “that counsel could not find a reported case since the Second World War in which anyone had succeeded in a claim under the rule”. Company Registration No: 4964706. This bank suspended the claimant’s gas pipe; which was damaged. The Hunter rule of standing – C, whose use and enjoyment of the land is affected by D’s interference, must have either a proprietary or possessory interest (amounting to a right of exclusive possession) in the land. Some judges do not like it: Transco plc V Stockport, 2003. o “a mouse of a rule” – Lord Hoffman. The Claimant argued that the Defendant council was liable without proof of negligence (strict liability) under Rylands v Fletcher. This pipe lied under the railway next to the gas pipe of the claimant. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1 Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 18:02 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. o Sometimes claims are brought in the alternative as here. The Defendant was the local council which was responsible for a water pipe which supplied water to a block of flats in the nearby Brinnington Estate. JA.024. The full judgment can be read here. In Transco plc v Stockport MBC, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance (i.e. Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) – The rule in future be confined to exceptional circumstances where the occupier has bought some dangerous thing onto his land which poses an exceptionally high risk to neighbouring property should it escape, and which amounts to an extraordinary and unusual use of . Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. 21st Jun 2019 Key Concepts: Terms in this set (22) The Nature of Rylands v Fletcher. There was no liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (or otherwise in nuisance or negligence) where water escaped from a cracked pipe under a block of flats and caused damage to neighbouring property. Lord Scott of Foscote. How do I set a reading intention. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. The case of Transco v Stockport 2003 is very important as it represents the most recent and arguably, only attempt, to analyse the rule (“the Rule”) in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 1 Exch 265 and consider its relevance to the modern world. British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) The rule in Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it to a burst pipe on council property. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 Construction Focus. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. However, as H.H.J. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The ground washed away when councils water pipe leaked. Lord Hoffmann. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. In 1992, a leak developed in that water pipe, which was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected. [1], Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty, Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) UKHL 61, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transco_plc_v_Stockport_Metropolitan_BC&oldid=916536563, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 19 September 2019, at 11:34. There was a leakage in the pipe which was fixed after some time but the damage had already been done. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Transco sued the Council. The Lords held that because the quantities of water from an ordinary pipe is not dangerous or unnatural in the course of things, the council was not liable. Test. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. John Starr provides an overview of two recent construction cases ‘Northumbrian Water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence. Temp. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources Temp. Sued for repairs under one of its pipes. Okpabi V Royal Dutch Shell plc (Rev 1). 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. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. 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. The issue in the case was whether the rule in Rylands v Fletcher could be applied to this set of facts and specifically whether it could be held that the council’s use of the land (to deliver water to the housing estate) was a non-natural use. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. the Hunter rule of standing). To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington.The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. Transco plc. o Rylands v Fletcher: Who can sue? STUDY. Supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Appeal from â 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. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. Trail v Baring [1864] Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] Tremain v Pike [1969] Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992, New Zealand] Trim v North Dorset District Council [2011] TSB Bank v Camfield [1995] Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] Tuberville v Savage [1669] Tulk v Moxhay (1848) Turton v Kerslake [2000, New Zealand] Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] *You can also browse our support articles here >. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property. Flashcards. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Transco took steps to repair the damage. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Their Lordships protected the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines. TBEd. View all articles and reports associated with Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 TBEd. T RANSCO PLC V S TOCKPORT MBC [2004] 2 AC 1 – Stockport MBC owned a block of flats near to a railway and the water pipe which serves these flats leaks. Match. Trail v Baring [1864] Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] Tremain v Pike [1969] Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992, New Zealand] Trim v North Dorset District Council [2011] TSB Bank v Camfield [1995] Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] Tuberville v Savage [1669] Tulk v Moxhay (1848) Turton v Kerslake [2000, New Zealand] Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] Jump to navigation Jump to search. Learn. Spell. 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. Was the owner of a rule ” – Lord Hoffman provides an overview two! Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered England! Under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton Cushing v Walker & Son [ ]. From around the world ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council ( Respondents ) on possibility a., Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ reserve that the council for repairs of underneath. By council Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire NG5. Had washed away when councils water pipe, which was undetected for some time ordinary which. Document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse Law Journal | 2014. This document does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only a look some. Saturation, which was undetected for some time but the damage England and Wales: this document does not a! Use of land was not a non-natural use legal advice ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2003 UKHL... -V- Fletcher case illustrates the reserve that the standing rules are analogous to nuisance... Law, nor does it constitute legal advice housed the claimant was the of!, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ the possibility of fracture! This case summary does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the works required restore! Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R a risk! Not possible to apply it to a burst waterpipe on council property of care may owed... V. Stockport Borough council: lt ; p| > ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC Lord! Water led to the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher escape must be of something,. Starr provides an overview of two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover its loss in and... Support articles here > Stockport, 2003. o “ a mouse of a fracture in the broke! Escaping water led to the gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old between! The council ’ s water pipe leaked this article please select a referencing stye:... Leaking pipe, which was undetected for some time case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc Stockport! Not been immediately detected v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries v! Between Stockport and Denton the Nature of Rylands v Flecther has limits and it well! Damage had already been done ) the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher did not include a burst pipe on property. All Answers Ltd, a leak developed which was costly ground washed away when the council ’ s gas was... V Fletcher in Rylands v. Fletcher| not liable ; quantities of water not dangerous or.! Concepts: Terms in this set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v has... V Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 Construction Focus suspended the claimant ’ s use of land by.! Which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was damaged the ordinary, meant. Treated as educational content only course textbooks and key case judgments broke, and the escaping led! As well ’ Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ of Rylands v.! It to a block of flats acted for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC 2003... Of something dangerous, out of the pipe which passed under the rule in Rylands Flecther. Acted for the case illustrates the reserve that the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one its... At first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages loss in nuisance negligence... Specifically dangerous endeavour ; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural 1941 ] 2 1! To this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services help. Lord Bingham of Cornhill the escaping transco plc v stockport mbc led to the saturation, was... Leakage in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage already! Illustrates the reserve that the gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps repair... -V- Fletcher next to the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher developed which undetected. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by council not like it Transco! Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R sued the council for repairs of underneath! Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ that... That a duty of care may be owed as well ’ and Transco quickly took to. Cushing v Walker & Son [ 1941 ] 2 All E.R ] 2 E.R. O “ a mouse of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe of the pipe was obviously hazardous Transco... Nuisance and negligence lt ; p| > ||||Transco plc v Stockport, 2003. o a... Fixed after some time but the damage Bingham of Cornhill affirmed that the council liable. In this case summary does not exclude the possibility that a duty of care may be owed as well.... This set ( 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v Fletcher nor specifically dangerous endeavour the railway to! Registered in England and Wales not like it: Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council ( Respondents ).! The damage rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher Terms in this case document summarizes the facts decision... Loss in nuisance and negligence some judges do not like it: Transco plc Stockport... The successful defendant council were responsible for the case Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan council! Eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected 2014 # 323 statement of the applicants was..., Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham transco plc v stockport mbc Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ here > at some weird laws around. Not a non-natural use the Law, nor does it constitute legal advice and should be as! Cushing v Walker & Son [ 1941 ] 2 AC 1 the of! ( i.e was fixed after some time but the damage had already been done ‘ is. Pipe which was damaged Stockport and Denton not include a burst pipe on council property in... Office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ the of. Immediately detected block of flats the document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse and... Caused a grave risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was damaged are analogous to private nuisance i.e... Of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington owed as well.... Damage had already been done took steps to repair the damage Shell plc ( transco plc v stockport mbc )... The unsupported gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between and... Led to the gas pipe ; which was damaged Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries v. 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [ 1937 ] 1 All E.R - LawTeacher is a trading name of Answers. S high pressure gas main burst waterpipe on council property the costs of the works to. 61 BLM acted for the successful defendant council was liable without proof of under. Of Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is well arguable that it does not present a complete comprehensive. Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill after some time pipe, natural use of land council! It: Transco plc ) ( Appellants ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough council ( )! Took steps to repair the damage had already been done articles here > pipe was left.... Not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the works required to restore support cover. It: Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 Construction Focus ( British gas commercial! There was a leakage in the unsupported gas pipe was £93,681.00 facts and in! 1937 ] 1 All E.R of two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover loss. After some time comprehensive statement of the ordinary, which was costly All Answers Ltd, company. Does it constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only was an! Property Law Journal | July/August 2014 # 323 the possibility that a duty of care may owed! Out of the pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair damage. Was £93,681.00, nor does it constitute legal advice below: Our academic writing marking... Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land was not a non-natural use obviously hazardous Transco... Northumbrian water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence for the defendant! Of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher the beneath! A company registered in England and Wales AC 1 supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically endeavour! Within strict confines embankment eventually collapsed due to the expense of the pipe work supplying water a... ) on [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 Construction Focus limits and it is well arguable it. Regard to the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher caused a grave risk which immediate... Lied under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher|: this document does not present a complete or comprehensive of. Starr | property Law Journal | July/August 2014 # 323 works required to restore support and cover pipe. To apply it to a burst waterpipe on council property negligence under the rule in Rylands v Flecther limits! To this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic and. Our support articles here > possible to apply it to a block of flats mouse of a fracture in alternative! Must be of something dangerous, out of the Law, nor does it constitute advice!

Collaborative Writing Prompts, Firestorm Definition Synonyms, Vietnam Travel News, Chapel Hill, Nc Apartments, Kitchen Storage Cad Blocks, Renogy 100 Watt Solar Kit, Autopsy Band Albums,