Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61

A council water pipe burst, damaging Transco's gas main. Transco sued under the strict liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The House of Lords held the council was not liable, as supplying water through ordinary pipes was a natural, not a non-natural, use of land.

Facts

The respondent, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, owned a 22-storey block of flats. They were responsible for a large high-pressure pipe which supplied water from the mains to storage tanks in the building. A fracture occurred in this pipe, which was located in the basement of the flats. The leak was not detected for a considerable time, and a very large quantity of water escaped. This water saturated an adjacent railway embankment, causing it to collapse. The collapse left a high-pressure gas main, owned by the appellant, Transco plc, unsupported and in a dangerous and precarious position. Transco took immediate and expensive remedial action, costing £93,681, to avert the danger and then sought to recover this cost from the council.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether the council was strictly liable for the damage under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. This required the House of Lords to consider the modern scope and application of the rule, specifically:

1. The meaning of ‘non-natural use’ of land

Was the piping of a large quantity of water for domestic use in a block of flats a ‘non-natural’ use of land, which is a key requirement for the rule to apply?

2. The role of foreseeability

Following the decision in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc, was foreseeability of the relevant type of damage a necessary component of liability under the rule?

3. The contemporary relevance of the rule

What is the continuing role of Rylands v Fletcher in the modern law of tort, particularly in light of the development of the law of negligence and statutory regulation?

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed Transco’s appeal, holding that the council was not liable. The Law Lords affirmed that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher still exists but has a very narrow and restricted application.

Lord Bingham’s Opinion

Lord Bingham, giving the leading speech, clarified that liability under the rule is limited to circumstances where a defendant’s use of land is ‘extraordinary and unusual’. He held that the operation of a domestic water supply, even in a large high-rise building, was an ‘ordinary user’ of land and not the ‘non-natural use’ required to trigger strict liability. He stated:

I think it clear that ordinary user is a preferable test to natural user, making it clear that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is engaged only where the defendant’s use is shown to be extraordinary and unusual.

He also confirmed that, following Cambridge Water, foreseeability of harm of the relevant type is a prerequisite for a claim under the rule. He concluded that the piping of the water supply was a normal and routine action and did not constitute a special or unusual use carrying a special hazard.

Lord Hoffmann’s Opinion

Lord Hoffmann agreed, emphasising that the rule should be viewed as a sub-species of nuisance. He argued that the ‘non-natural use’ test refers to a use that creates an exceptionally high risk of danger to a neighbour. He quoted with approval Lord Moulton’s test in Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263:

It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community.

He found that supplying domestic water to the flats did not meet this high threshold, as it was neither a special use nor did it bring with it an increased danger beyond that which a neighbour could be expected to tolerate.

Other Opinions

Lords Hobhouse, Scott, and Walker all delivered concurring speeches. They agreed that the conveyance of water in ordinary pipes for domestic and commercial purposes was a classic example of an ordinary use of land. They reinforced the view that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher should be confined to cases where the defendant has done something which brings an exceptional risk to others, outside the scope of the normal give and take of social life.

Implications

This landmark decision significantly restricted the scope of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. It confirmed that the tort is not one of absolute liability but requires foreseeability of damage. Crucially, it reinterpreted ‘non-natural use’ to mean an ‘extraordinary or unusual’ use of land that brings with it an exceptional degree of risk. The judgment demonstrates a clear judicial preference for fault-based liability under negligence for most harms caused by escapes from land, reserving strict liability for only the most exceptional and high-risk activities. The case effectively assimilates the rule into the broader principles of nuisance, thereby reducing its status as a distinct tort.

Verdict: The appeal by Transco plc was dismissed; the House of Lords found in favour of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

Source: Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61