Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v British Gas plc & Anor

Strict liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher does not arise merely because water is accumulated under pressure and foreseeable damage may result if it escapes. The rule is excluded where land is used in the ordinary course of enjoyment, including the commonplace supply of water, gas or electricity by ordinary methods. The relevant question is one of law where the factual context is established.

An unintended accumulation after an escape does not itself found liability. In the absence of negligence, nuisance, or liability under the rule, a measured duty to abate consequences will not ordinarily arise without notice of what the defendant is required to do.

Water escaped from a large service pipe supplying a tower block owned and managed by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. It travelled through filled land and caused a railway embankment to collapse, exposing British Gas’s high-pressure gas main and damaging the adjoining golf course.

British Gas and the Golf Club claimed losses in Rylands v Fletcher, nuisance and negligence. British Gas also relied on an easement of support. The Technology and Construction Court gave judgment for both claimants. The Council appealed on the issues of strict liability, negligence, nuisance and withdrawal of support.

1. Appeals allowed. The Council was not liable to either claimant under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, in negligence, nuisance or for withdrawal of support.
2. The foreseeable risk of damage from an escape does not by itself impose strict liability. The rule applies only where the defendant’s use involves an unusual or non-natural accumulation. Ordinary use of land, including the supply of services by commonplace methods, falls outside the rule. Supplying water to flats in a tower block through a service pipe was an ordinary use in contemporary conditions. The dimensions of the pipe were not shown to be unusual for such a building.
3. The water’s later accumulation in the filled valley did not create liability. The relevant accumulation must be deliberate and occur in the place from which the escape took place. The valley accumulation was unintended and followed the escape from the service pipe.
4. The trial judge’s finding of negligence based on failing to divert water during the preceding weekend was not open to him. That case had not been pleaded or properly investigated in evidence. The filling of the ravine was also not shown to be negligent; its drainage had adequately dealt with natural precipitation for decades.
5. The nuisance claim failed because the escape was not created, adopted or continued by the Council through unreasonable use of land. The same conclusion followed from the rejection of strict liability and negligence.
6. British Gas’s easement imposed a duty not actively to interfere with support, not a positive duty to provide support. Even assuming that a measured duty to abate the consequences of an escape could arise, it would not be appropriate to impose liability here. The Council had not been put on notice of any required remedial action, and no cause of action had arisen on the pleaded and argued case.
7. Costs below and in the Court of Appeal were awarded to the Council. British Gas was ordered to repay £142,357.69 within 14 days.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the Council’s appeals from orders made by HH Judge Howarth in the Technology and Construction Court at Salford.
• Technology and Construction Court, Salford District Registry: gave judgment for British Gas and Reddish Vale Golf Club against Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.