The water company sought to refuse to allow the developer to connect to the public sewer at a point where, it said, the system would overflow.
Held: The developer’s appeal succeeded. The statute provided only narrow grounds for refusing a connection, relating solely to the mode of construction and condition of the connecting drain.
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘I am unable to conclude that the expression ‘mode of construction and condition of the drain or sewer’ in section 106(4), repeated in section 106(5) of the 1991 Act, has any bearing upon the location of the communication with the public sewer contemplated in section 106(1)(b) and section 106(4). Mode of construction has nothing to do with location’.
 EWCA Civ 1552,  JPL 1095,  Env LR 25,  11 EG 120,  1 EGLR 55
Water Industry Act 1991
Appeal From – Barratt Homes Ltd v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water) QBD 1-Aug-2008
The parties disputed whether the water company had the right to refuse a connection with the public sewer at a point chosen by the developer.
Held: It would be objectionable to construe the statute in such a way as to preclude an undertaker . .
Cited – Beech Properties v GE Wallis and Sons Ltd 1977
The court was asked whether a vendor of property had satisfied an obligation to provide the purchaser with the right to run foul and surface water from the land sold to a public sewer. The vendor contended that this obligation was satisfied by the . .
Appeal from – Barratt Homes Ltd v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water) SC 9-Dec-2009
The developers wanted to construct their private sewer to the public sewer at a point convenient to them. The water company said a connection at the point proposed would overload the sewer, and refused. The developer claimed that it had the right to . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 March 2021; Ref: scu.291895