Torette House Pty Ltd v Berkman

The appellant, Torette House Pty Ltd, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned damage caused to the appellant's premises by water escaping from a disconnected pipe under the respondent's adjoining property. The respondent had engaged an independent contractor, a plumber, to carry out alterations to the water supply on his premises. In the course of this work, the plumber mistakenly turned on a stopcock connected to the disconnected pipe, which was unplugged at its end, allowing water to flood into the appellant's basement. The respondent was unaware of the presence or condition of this disconnected pipe.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondent was liable to the appellant in nuisance, under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, or for the negligence of the independent contractor. The appellant argued that the escape of water constituted a nuisance and that the respondent was strictly liable under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, or alternatively, that the respondent was vicariously liable for the negligence of the plumber. The respondent contended that he was not liable as he had no knowledge of the pipe, the escape of water was not a natural consequence of the work he commissioned, and he was not liable for the collateral negligence of an independent contractor.

The High Court, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court, held that the respondent was not liable. The Court reasoned that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher did not apply because the installation of an ordinary domestic water supply is not considered a non-natural use of land, and the damage was caused by the plumber's negligence, not the mere presence of the pipe. Furthermore, the Court found that the respondent was not personally negligent, as he had no knowledge of the defective pipe and had engaged a competent independent contractor. The Court also held that the respondent was not liable for the plumber's negligence, as the work commissioned was not inherently dangerous, and the plumber's act of turning on the stopcock was collateral negligence outside the scope of his employment.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the verdict for the defendant (respondent) was upheld.