Tort Law

Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

[2003] UKHL 61; [2004] 2 AC 1

Facts

• Stockport Council owned a block containing approximately sixty-six residential flats.
• Water was supplied to the flats through an ordinary mains-water pipe.
• The pipe failed without proof of negligence.
• Water leaked into the surrounding ground.
• It travelled towards an embankment supporting a high-pressure gas main owned by Transco.
• The leakage weakened the embankment and created a risk that the gas main might become exposed or collapse.
• Transco carried out substantial emergency and stabilisation work.
• It sought to recover its expenses from the council under Rylands v. Fletcher.
• The council argued that supplying domestic water to residential flats was a completely ordinary use of land.
• The quantity of water and the risk created by the pipe were not exceptional.

• What degree of danger and extraordinariness is required for Rylands liability?
• Whether an ordinary domestic water supply constitutes non-natural use.
• Whether the rule should be retained as a distinct but narrow form of liability.

• Rylands is a narrow and exceptional rule.
• The claimant must establish:
o accumulation or control of a thing on the defendant’s land;
o an exceptionally dangerous or mischievous characteristic if it escapes;
o extraordinary and unusual use of land;
o escape;
o foreseeable property damage of the relevant kind.
• “Non-natural use” means an extraordinary use creating an increased and exceptional danger, not merely any artificial use.
• Ordinary domestic and routine public-utility uses generally fall outside the rule.
• Under English law, Rylands principally protects interests in land and does not operate as a general personal-injury rule.

• The council maintained water to serve ordinary residential flats.
• Supplying domestic water through a standard pipe was a normal and socially necessary use of land.
• The volume involved was not comparable to:
o a large reservoir;
o industrial chemical storage;
o explosives; or
o another exceptional accumulation.
• Water can cause damage, but the relevant question was whether the defendant had created an extraordinary danger.
• The answer was no.
• The escape resulted from an ordinary pipe failure rather than a special hazard introduced for an unusual commercial purpose.
• Transco argued that the seriousness of potential damage to a gas main should be sufficient.
• The House of Lords held that the exceptional character must arise from the defendant’s use, not merely from the vulnerability or importance of neighbouring property.
• Applying Rylands to ordinary water supplies would expose householders, landlords and public bodies to broad strict liability for routine leaks.
• Such an extension was inconsistent with the carefully limited nature of the rule.

• The House of Lords dismissed Transco’s appeal.
• Supplying water to residential flats was an ordinary use of land and did not create an exceptionally dangerous accumulation.
• The council was not negligent, and Rylands did not apply.
• The judgment retained the rule but confined it to extraordinary uses involving exceptional danger.