Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents)

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher remains a narrow species of private nuisance and has not been absorbed into negligence. Liability without proof of fault arises only where an occupier brings or keeps on land something which creates an exceptionally high risk of danger if it escapes, and the use of the land is extraordinary or unusual by contemporary local standards.

The rule protects interests in land and requires an escape from the defendant’s occupation or control. Damage of the relevant type must be foreseeable. An ordinary domestic or commercial water supply, without evidence of exceptional danger, does not satisfy the rule merely because a large quantity of water eventually escapes.

Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council concerned water which escaped without negligence from a three-inch pipe supplying 66 flats in a council-owned tower block. The water saturated adjoining ground and caused part of a railway embankment to collapse. That exposed and deprived Transco’s high-pressure gas main of support. Transco incurred £93,681 in protective works.

The trial judge held the council strictly liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision in [2001] EWCA Civ 212. The appeal raised whether the rule should remain part of English law and, if so, whether the ordinary water-supply pipe created the exceptional danger and extraordinary use required for strict liability.

1. Disposition. The House unanimously dismissed Transco’s appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. The council was not strictly liable for the cost of protecting and restoring support to the gas main.

2. Continuing existence and character of the rule. Lord Bingham gave the principal restatement. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher remains part of English law as a narrow species of private nuisance. It imposes liability without proof of negligence for an isolated escape in the exceptional cases falling within its requirements. The House declined to adopt the Australian approach in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Property Ltd, under which the rule had been absorbed into negligence. Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse and Lord Walker also considered abolition too radical or premature.

3. Exceptional danger and extraordinary use. Per Lord Bingham, the defendant must have brought or kept something which the defendant recognised, or ought reasonably to have recognised, as creating an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if it escaped. The threshold is high because the rule imposes liability without fault. The use must also be extraordinary and unusual, judged by contemporary standards of place and time. “Ordinary use” is preferable to the older expression “natural use”. Lord Walker agreed that the two requirements should be considered together: it is the extraordinary risk to neighbouring property that makes the use special.

4. Application. The council’s pipe was a normal means of supplying water at mains pressure to a block of flats. Its greater diameter did not establish an abnormal risk of fracture or discharge. Supplying the flats with water was an entirely routine use of the land. The circumstances therefore failed both the exceptional-danger and extraordinary-use requirements.

5. Limits of the rule. The rule protects land and proprietary interests rather than claims for death or personal injury. An escape from the defendant’s occupation or control is essential, and liability extends only to foreseeable damage of the relevant type. Statutory authority and the established defences of act of God or the act of a stranger may exclude liability.

6. Separate reasoning. Lord Scott additionally concluded that no qualifying escape occurred because the water remained on council-owned land and damaged the council’s embankment, notwithstanding Transco’s easement. The other members did not adopt that as the common basis of decision. Lord Hoffmann regarded the availability of ordinary property insurance as a useful guide to whether a risk arose from non-natural use; Lord Hobhouse rejected insurance as altering the principled allocation of risk.

1. House of Lords: The appeal was dismissed unanimously in [2003] UKHL 61. The Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher did not impose liability was upheld.
2. Court of Appeal: In [2001] EWCA Civ 212, the court reversed the trial judge’s finding of strict liability.
3. Trial court: The judge upheld Transco’s claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, but rejected its allegations of negligence concerning the drains and culverts. A citation is not stated in the judgment.