Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1
Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council
Facts
The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. 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. In 1992, a leak developed in that water pipe, which was eventually fixed but which had not been immediately detected. 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. The embankment eventually collapsed due to the saturation, which meant that the gas pipe was left unsupported. This caused a grave risk which necessitated immediate remedial work, which was costly. The Claimant argued that the Defendant council was liable without proof of negligence (strict liability) under Rylands v Fletcher
Issue
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.
Held
The court held that the council was not liable for the damage as the council’s use was a natural use of the land. The rule in Rylands v Flecther has limits and it is not possible to apply it to a burst pipe on council property. Supplying water was neither an unnatural nor specifically dangerous endeavour.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the law. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61, [2004] 2 AC 1 is still the leading House of Lords authority on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in English law. The decision confirmed that the rule survives as a sub-species of nuisance, that it requires a non-natural use of land, and that the threshold for non-natural use is high. No subsequent UK legislation or appellate authority has overruled or materially altered the principles set out in this case. Students should note that the House of Lords in Transco also confirmed, following the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264, that foreseeability of damage of the relevant type is a necessary condition of liability under the rule. The article does not mention this requirement, which is an important element of the modern law.
