Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] ...

Facts

• Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council concerned the application of the strict liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
• The local council operated a water pipe supplying water to a block of flats.
• A leak in the pipe saturated the embankment supporting Transco’s gas pipe, threatening to collapse and requiring urgent remedial work.
• Transco sought to recover the costs of the remedial work from the council under the Rylands v Fletcher rule.
• The House of Lords examined whether this scenario involved a “non-natural” use of land and whether strict liability applied for the escape of water.

Issues

1. Whether the supply of water to residential flats constituted a “non-natural” or “extraordinary and unusual” use of land under the Rylands v Fletcher rule.
2. Whether the council’s actions met the criteria for strict liability due to the escape of a potentially dangerous substance.
3. To what extent the costs of remedial works were recoverable in such cases.

Decision

• The House of Lords upheld the Rylands v Fletcher rule but stated it must remain tightly constrained.
• The supply of water via the council’s pipe was found to be a natural, routine, and insurable use of land—thus not a “non-natural” or “extraordinary” use.
• As the escape was not from a non-natural use, strict liability did not apply, and the council was not liable.
• The judgment clarified that remedial expenses are recoverable if the damage they prevent would have been actionable under Rylands v Fletcher, but this threshold was not met on the facts.

Legal Principles

• The Rylands v Fletcher rule imposes strict liability for escapes arising from non-natural uses of land involving something likely to cause damage.
• “Non-natural use” requires an “extraordinary and unusual” use, assessed with regard to context, time, and place.
• The rule is a sub-species of nuisance and does not apply to personal injury, only to property damage from escape.
• Strict liability must not be imposed easily due to potential consequences for defendants undertaking routine activities.
• Activities that are commonplace, routine, and insurable typically do not constitute non-natural use.
• The general benefit to the community is irrelevant in the assessment of non-natural use.

Conclusion

The House of Lords affirmed the continued existence of the Rylands v Fletcher rule but strictly confined its scope. The court ruled that the supply of water in this context was a natural use of land and therefore did not trigger strict liability, providing important clarification and restraint on future application of the rule.