Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Transco Plc v United Utilities Water Plc

354 words (1 pages) Case Summary

21st Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Transco Plc v United Utilities Water Plc [2005] EWHC 2784

Tort – Negligence – Duty of Care – Economic Loss – Proximity – Trespass to Goods – Wrongful Interference with goods


United Utilities Water (UUW) operated water networks in the UK. UUW were required to shut off the water while undertaking street work. An UUW employee mistakenly shut off a gas valve rather than a water valve. As a result, Transco (the gas company) incurred substantial costs in restoring and investigating the issues surrounding the gas supplies. Transco alleged UUW was liable for negligence and trespass, seeking to claim pure economic loss.


Was there necessary proximity in the relationship between the parties for UUW to owe Transco a duty of care?


Reasonable proximity was found to exist between the parties, as both parties operated in the same street and both were public utilities. It was reasonable to expect that accidentally shutting off the wrong valve may affect the installation of other providers or installers, which were located in the same substrata. Transco sought to recover economic loss resulting from UUW’s actions. The “spirit” of physical damage to property included any damage caused to reputation and wrongful interference with goods or land. UUW had negligently interfered with the property owned by Transco, which had consequentially resulted in loss. Transco were seeking to recover the costs of rectifying the damage, not the consequential loss flowing from the interruption of the supply. It was considered irrelevant that no physical damage occurred to the pipe, thus liability under the Torts Interference with Goods Act 1977 was established. As street works were being carried out at the time of the incident, UUW was also liable to compensate Transco under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, s 82(1)(b).

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles