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 from refusing a connection that would have potentially deleterious environmental consequences.
Judges:
Wyn Williams J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 1936 (QB)
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Cited – Smeaton v Ilford Corporation ChD 1954
Overloading caused the corporation’s foul sewer to erupt through a manhole and discharge ‘deleterious and malodorous matter’ into Mr Smeaton’s garden.
Held: The authority were not liable for the connections with the sewer and discharge of . .
Cited by:
Appeal From – Barratt Homes Ltd v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water) CA 28-Nov-2008
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 . .
At First Instance – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Utilities
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.383812
