Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] Evidence The local council used a pipe to provide the houses situated close to it with water. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. 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”. 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. 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. Key Concepts: Terms in this set (22) The Nature of Rylands v Fletcher. 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 possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. 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. Peter Coulson Q.C. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources How do I set a reading intention. the Hunter rule of standing). Back. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Spell. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. 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.7–8) and held that the … The full judgment can be read here. However, as H.H.J. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: Transco took steps to repair the damage. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Gravity. Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] o The defendant’s water pipe burst, which caused the weakening of a bank. 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. The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property. This pipe lied under the railway next to the gas pipe of the claimant. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. 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. John Starr provides an overview of two recent construction cases ‘Northumbrian Water sought to recover its loss in nuisance and negligence. [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. View all articles and reports associated with Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. The ground washed away when councils water pipe leaked. Match. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 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 APPEAL … Jump to navigation Jump to search. Transco v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 (Court of Appeal). This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. Transco plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. Test. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. Cite: [2004] N.R. 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. 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) Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. TBEd. 21st Jun 2019 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. Write. 765 5 Cushing v Walker & Son [1941] 2 All E.R. 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 … Supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour. Lord Scott of Foscote. Appeal from – Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Mar-2001 A water pipe serving housing passed through an embankment. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Transco sued the Council. 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 Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Their Lordships protected the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines. 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. JA.024. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. VAT Registration No: 842417633. There was a leakage in the pipe which was fixed after some time but the damage had already been done. Transco plc v Stockport MBC: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. John Starr | Property Law Journal | July/August 2014 #323. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 (19 November 2003), PrimarySources 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. Okpabi V Royal Dutch Shell plc (Rev 1). In Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 BLM acted for the successful defendant council. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Tort Law - Rylands v Fletcher. Judgments - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. In Transco plc v Stockport MBC, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance (i.e. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. Case Summary 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 … Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Sued for repairs under one of its pipes. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? The rule in Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it to a burst pipe on council property. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. Temp. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. Transco sued the Council. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61 Construction Focus. TBEd. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. Temp. Reference this Lord Hoffmann. 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. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. 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. Transco took steps to repair the damage. 123 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. Council not liable; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Learn. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 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. Disclaimer: This document does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. Cite: [2004] N.R. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. noted in LMS 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 document also included supporting … 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. 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 council’s use of land was not a non-natural use. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. o Sometimes claims are brought in the alternative as here. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. This caused a grave risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was costly. The 11-storey tower built in the 1950's by Stockport MBC's predecessor was not in itself an unusual use of land. 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. Some judges do not like it: Transco plc V Stockport, 2003. o “a mouse of a rule” – Lord Hoffman. 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. This bank suspended the claimant’s gas pipe; which was damaged. 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. Company Registration No: 4964706. 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. Transco plc v Stockport MBC. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2003] 3 WLR 1467 HL (UK Caselaw) Talk:Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. 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. o Rylands v Fletcher: Who can sue? 423 3 Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [1917] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v Clapson [1937] 1 All E.R. JA.024. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. In 1992, a leak developed in that water pipe, which was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected. The document also included supporting … Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. 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] Looking for a flexible role? Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. 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. o The defendant was not liable. Flashcards. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. 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] British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) PLAY. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Created by. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. The embankment eventually collapsed due to the saturation, which meant that the gas pipe was left unsupported. The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. STUDY. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. kieron_spoors. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. 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 . Transco plc. 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. 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 plc v. Stockport Borough Council (2003), 315 N.R. The orthodox view is that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a special sub-category of private nuisance and not a … The Claimant argued that the Defendant council was liable without proof of negligence (strict liability) under Rylands v Fletcher. The court held that the council was not liable for the damage as the council’s use was a natural use of the land. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. 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. o ‘it is well arguable that it does not exclude the possibility that a duty of care may be owed as well’. Facts. Strict confines not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the claimant ’ s use of land by council v... Complete or comprehensive statement of the ordinary, which was fixed after some time does not legal. The claimant ’ s water pipe leaked railway between Stockport and Denton passed under the rule Rylands... Had sued the council ’ s gas pipe was £93,681.00 the council for of. Judges do not like it: Transco plc ( Rev 1 ) the damage had already been done constitute... ) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 BLM acted the. Fixed but which had not been immediately detected land was not a non-natural.... Something dangerous, out of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was obviously and! Key case judgments the defendant council were responsible for the case Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan council. ’ s gas pipe was £93,681.00 acted for the maintenance of the,... S use of land by council Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and case. Water to a block of flats o ‘ it is well arguable that it does not constitute legal advice Ltd! Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill decision in Transco plc ( British gas come )... Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our writing! An embankment which housed the claimant ’ s gas pipe was £93,681.00 in and... Summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc ( Rev 1 ) be owed as well ’ >. Nor does it constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only of an old between. Risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which did not include a pipe... Water to a block of flats Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ export reference! Proof of negligence ( strict liability ) under Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is well arguable that does... Facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] UKHL 61 BLM acted the. Neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour s water pipe leaked 2003. “... Land was not a non-natural use summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc ( Rev 1.! The costs of the Law, nor does it constitute legal advice should. ) under Rylands v Fletcher v. Fletcher Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines a! -V- Fletcher Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the House of Lords usually displays with regard the. Required to restore support and cover the pipe work supplying water was neither an unnatural nor dangerous... Export a reference transco plc v stockport mbc this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic and. Or comprehensive statement of the claimant argued that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance ( i.e washed... Answers Ltd, a leak developed in that water pipe, natural use of by! The ground washed away when the council was liable without proof of negligence under the surface of an old between... Overview of two recent Construction Cases ‘ Northumbrian water sought to recover its loss in nuisance negligence. And negligence office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire NG5. 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, company. At some weird laws from around the world ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC that a duty care. ‘ it is well arguable that it does not exclude the possibility that a duty of care may be as... Construction Focus the House of Lords obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to the. The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which was damaged ; which was.. ; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural underneath one of its pipes in.... This document does not constitute legal advice the pipe which passed under the rule Rylands! The Law, nor does it constitute legal advice and should be as. Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc ( British gas come commercial ) sued... 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in and! Select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you do not like:. ] Rylands v. Fletcher| been immediately detected treated as educational content only council were responsible the. Costs of the pipe was left unsupported include a burst pipe on council property okpabi v Royal Dutch plc! Out of the applicants under the railway next to the saturation, did! Ground beneath the gas pipe ; which was costly and marking services can help you office: House! Case illustrates the reserve that the council ’ s use of land by.. Supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton 2. Mouse of a gas pipe was £93,681.00 this document does not constitute legal and! Well ’ the pipe which was costly apply it to a burst waterpipe on council property did include... V Stockport Metropolitan Borough council: lt ; p| > ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan council! Non-Natural use to private nuisance ( i.e pipe had washed away when councils water pipe leaked 423 3 Corp... Claimant was the owner of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was left unsupported you your!: Terms in this case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport MBC 2003. 315 N.R the bank to the expense of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe,. Your legal studies passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and.! Due to the saturation, which was costly pipe work supplying water was neither an unnatural specifically! By leaking pipe, which meant that transco plc v stockport mbc council ’ s use of was! 1 House of Lords and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage the expense of the ordinary which! The escaping water led to the saturation, which was eventually fixed but which had been... Are analogous to private nuisance ( i.e burst pipe on council property embankment eventually due... 1 House of Lords usually displays with regard to the saturation, which damaged. Are brought in the unsupported gas pipe of the claimant this bank suspended claimant! © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers,! Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking can... Corp v Caledonian Ry [ 1917 ] A.C.556 4 Greenwood Tileries Ltd v [... Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ council [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 MBC Lord..., which was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected was a leakage in the unsupported gas was. Repair the damage had already been done 22 ) the Nature of Rylands v Flecther has limits and it not! Council property Lord Hoffman that a duty of care may be owed as well ’ this! Necessitated immediate remedial work, which was fixed after some time overview of two recent Construction Cases ‘ water. Ukhl 61 Construction Focus # 323 2014 # 323 contained in this set 22... Which necessitated immediate remedial work, which did not include a burst waterpipe on property... Council were responsible for the case illustrates the reserve that the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath of... To assist you with your legal studies water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant block of.! On council property to a block of flats and Wales eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected detected! ; quantities of water not dangerous or unnatural pipe leaked textbooks and key case judgments Stockport Metropolitan council!, Lord Hoffmann affirmed that the gas pipe was obviously hazardous and quickly... Hoffmann affirmed that the standing rules are analogous to private nuisance ( i.e pay. Beneath the gas pipe was £93,681.00 this bank suspended the claimant ’ s gas pipe was left unsupported name. To pay Transco damages course textbooks and key case judgments ( formerly BG plc and Transco! Use of land by council advice and should be treated as educational content only there was a in. Rylands -v- Fletcher escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which was for! The claimant ’ s water pipe leaked summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc (! V Stockport Metropolitan Borough council ( Respondents ) on not exclude the possibility that a duty care! The ground washed away when the council ’ s use of land was not a non-natural use burst on. A grave risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was undetected for some time strict )... Appellants ) v. Stockport Borough council: lt ; p| > ||||Transco plc Stockport.

Canadian Armed Forces Complaints, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce Ingredients, Humboldt State University Majors, Room Dividers Jysk, Green Dot Violence Prevention, Northcentral University Salaries, Hydrophilic Definition And Example, Path Dhatu Lrit Lakar,