Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1 (HL)

Facts

• Transco plc operated a gas pipeline supported by an embankment near land owned by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.
• A burst water pipe, owned and maintained by the council, caused significant damage to the embankment supporting the gas pipeline.
• Transco sought to recover repair costs from the council, arguing that liability arose under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for damage caused by the escape of water from the pipe.
• The council’s water supply system was a standard public utility providing water to the area.

Issues

1. Whether the operation of a water supply system by the council constituted a non-natural or exceptional use of land under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
2. Whether the council could be held strictly liable for damage caused by the escape of water under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
3. Whether the rule in Rylands v Fletcher should continue to be treated as an independent tort or recognized as a sub-species of nuisance within tort law.

Decision

• The House of Lords held that the council’s use of land for a water supply system was not an exceptional or non-natural use.
• It was determined that public utilities, such as the water supply system involved, are not ordinarily considered non-natural or extraordinary uses of land.
• The court concluded that liability under Rylands v Fletcher requires land use to be extraordinary, unusual, or inappropriate to its context.
• The House of Lords reaffirmed and clarified that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a sub-species of nuisance, not an independent tort.
• Transco’s claim for strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher was rejected.

Legal Principles

• Liability under Rylands v Fletcher arises only where there is an escape from land used in an extraordinary or non-natural manner.
• The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is now recognized as a sub-species of nuisance, integrating its operation into the broader framework of nuisance law.
• The court emphasized the importance of context, considering the location, purpose, and necessity of the land use when assessing whether it is non-natural.
• Strict liability does not apply to ordinary uses of land, even where hazardous substances are involved, unless the use is exceptional.
• Foreseeability of harm and public utility are important factors in determining liability.

Conclusion

The decision in Transco plc v Stockport MBC clarified that strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher applies only to exceptional or non-natural use of land and reaffirmed its status as a subset of nuisance, thereby limiting its scope within modern tort law.