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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal