EE Ltd v Office of Communications: Admn 26 Aug 2016

Claim for judicial review of the decision of the Office of Communications (‘Ofcom’), the defendant, regarding the annual licence fee payable for the use of two bands of radio spectrum, the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2134 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Utilities, Media

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.568831

Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 13 Jun 2013

Appeal against Inspector’s grant of permission for wind farm after a public inquiry.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1612 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromBayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others CA 26-Feb-2014
Appeal against dismissal of a challenge to the decision of a planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, who had allowed an appeal by the developer against the planning authority’s refusal of planning permission for the construction of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Utilities

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510835

Regina v Thames Water Utilities Ltd: CACD 19 Feb 2010

The defendant company appealed against sentence for an offence under section 85(1) of the 1991 Act.

Judges:

Lord Justice Moore-Bick
Mr Justice David Clarke
And
Mr Justice Sweeney

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 202, [2010] 2 Cr App R (S) 90, [2010] Env LR 34, [2010] 3 All ER 47

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Resources Act 1991 85(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Utilities

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.401804

Aerospace Publishing Ltd and Another v Thames Water Utilities Ltd: QBD 13 Jan 2006

Whether respondents liable for damage from leak from mains water pipe – calculation of damages.

Judges:

Holland J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2987 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromAerospace Publishing Ltd and Another v Thames Water Utilities Ltd CA 11-Jan-2007
A substantial private archive of valuable books had been damaged when the defendant’s water mains burst. The court was asked to assess the value.
Held: The water company’s appeal failed save to a small extent. The articles were of substantial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Torts – Other, Damages

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238319

United Utilities Water Plc v The Environment Agency for England and Wales: QBD 13 Jan 2006

Judges:

Nelson J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 9 (QB), [2006] Env LR 32

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991, Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromUnited Utilities Water Plc v Environment Agency for England and Wales CA 19-May-2006
. .
At First InstanceUnited Utilities Water Plc v Environment Agency for England and Wales HL 17-Oct-2007
The company appealed a finding that it could not process non-hazardous waste waste at one licensed site and move it to another for disposal.
Held: The treatment must form part of a process which results in a discarded rather than a recovered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Utilities

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238317

Societe anonyme metallurgique Hainaut-Sambre v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment): ECJ 15 Dec 1965

Europa 1. Common financial arrangements – equalization – contributions – exemption – principles (ECSC treaty, article 53) 2. Common financial arrangements – equalization – ferrous scrap – exemption – own resources – concept (ECSC treaty, article 53) 1 Cf. Paragraph 1, summary in case 3/65 (1965) ECR 1065. The conditions for granting exemption from contributions under an equalization scheme must be interpreted strictly and must be consistent with the aims, the basic principles and requirements for the proper functioning of such a scheme, in particular the principle of the equal liability of all those affected to pay contributions shared in proportion to the amounts respectively consumed, and the requirement that the scheme be applied impartially to all those subject to it. No exemption from equalization contributions can be allowed which would tend to increase substantially differences in production costs, otherwise than by altering the level of output, and thereby bring about an appreciable disequilibrium in the competitive relationships between undertakings. 2. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary in case 3/65 (1965) ECR 1065. Any exemption from equalization contributions which depends not on the way in which an undertaking arranges its production but on the contractual relationships which it has with other undertakings is not compatible with the equalization scheme. Classification of scrap as ‘own resources’ is not necessarily dependent on the concept of ownership of the scrap, but is intended to apply in the main to scrap which is genuinely the product of an undertaking’s own activity

Citations:

C-4/65, [1965] EUECJ C-4/65

Links:

Bailii

European, Utilities

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131779

Geitling Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft and Others v ECSC High Authority: ECJ 3 May 1961

ECJ 1. In view of the difference of wording between paragraphs (1) and (2) of article 65 of the ECSC treaty a basic distinction between the power to fix prices and the power to determine prices is permissible.
for the undertaking which exercises it, the power to fix prices represents an objective fact arising out of an easily ascertainable organizational structure.
On the other hand, the power to determine prices resides in the power, given to the undertaking entitled to exercise it, to establish prices at a level appreciably different from that at which they would have been established by the unaided effect of competition. Thus a power to determine prices can be said to exist only when it is established that the actual prices are, or may be, different from what they would have been in the absence of any power to fix prices.
2. It follows from the provisions of article 65 (2) and 66 (2) of the ecsc treaty that the treaty is not opposed to the continued existence or to the creation of large production or sales units, such as are characteristic of the coal and steel market, on condition that the resulting system of imperfect competition serves the objectives of the treaty and, in particular, that it safeguards within that market the measure of competition essential for the observance of the requirements of the second paragraph of article 2.
3. A cartel which has the ability to regulate the marketing of a substantial part of a given product within the common market exercises a power of control over marketing within the meaning of article 65 (2) (c) of the ecsc treaty.
4. By permitting the continued existence and creation of large production and sales units within the common market for coal and steel, the ecsc treaty grants those who take part in this market a measure of power to determine prices, which is, however, limited by provisions such as those of article 65 (2) (c) which are intended to safeguard a necessary minimum of competition.
5. A power to determine prices or to control marketing applies to a substantial part of certain products within the common market when the full extent of the effects which it produces is not of secondary or minor importance, but is such as to jeopardize, within the said market, the measure of competition intended by the treaty or the execution of the tasks which articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 assign to the community.

Citations:

C-13/60, [1962] EUECJ C-13/60

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131631

Italy v ECSC High Authority: ECJ 21 Dec 1954

ECJ Several related decisions may be contested in a single application. Nowhere does the Treaty prescribe that any infringement of the rules governing price publication amounts in itself to one of the practices prohibited under article 60 (1). The absence of any precise definition by the high authority of the meaning of exceptional transactions and comparable transactions does not make the concept of discrimination meaningless. The comparability-like the exceptional nature-of a transaction can only be assessed in the light of the state of the market. The duty to make the price-lists and conditions of sale public allows of no exception. The price-lists must precede any sale effected in the common market. The treaty requires the publication of exact prices. It is not enough to publish average or approximate prices. The powers conferred on the high authority by the words contained in article 60 (2) ‘ to the extent and in the manner prescribed by the high authority ‘ are powers to prescribe the extent, that is to say, the scope, of publications, in so far as it is a question of settling their details. On the other hand, they do not make it possible to set up a system providing for mean variations from published prices, which would have the effect of authorizing disregard of published price-lists. The extent of the publication of price-lists is insufficient if they are communicated only to the high authority; the high authority must ensure that the price-lists are made available to anyone interested. The power to obtain information provided for in article 47 of the treaty can lawfully be used in order inter alia to supervise the observance of the rules on non-discrimination and on the publication of price-lists. When adopting the measures necessary for the implementation of article 60, the high authority has not merely a right but a duty to take into account all the aims laid down in articles 2, 3 and 4, such as the fixing of prices at as low a level as possible and the attempt to prevent prohibited agreements. Consequently, in order to achieve the latter two aims, the high authority is not bound to confine itself exclusively to the measures provided for in articles 61 and 65. Where more than one aim is being pursued, even if the grounds for a decision include improper grounds in addition to the valid ones, this would not make the decision invalid for misuse of powers, provided that the decision does not sacrifice the main aim. The objective of article 30 (2) of the convention on the transitional provisions is to prevent non-italian undertakings from competing with italian undertakings on the italian steel market by undercutting their own price-lists. A decision of the high authority, without the agreement of the italian government, authorizing variations from the price-lists of non-italian undertakings is consequently contrary to article 30. When a decision of the high authority is contested, the high authority must transmit to the court its minutes relating to the decision; the court may authorize the omission of the names of speakers. The court may, nevertheless, waive production of such documents if it considers that they are not indispensable for deciding the issue.

Citations:

C-2/54

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131528

Robinson v Workington Corporation: CA 1897

Mr Robinson’s houses were damaged by water overflowing from the council’s public sewers. The sewers were adequate until new houses were built. He claimed damages in respect of the council’s failure to build a new sewer of sufficient dimensions to carry off the increased volume of sewage.
Held: The court dismissed his claim. The 1875 Act provided a mechanism for enforcing performance of the statutory drainage obligation. The remedy available for breach of the drainage obligation was determined by the statute, which provided that in cases of default the Local Government Board should make an appropriate order which, if not complied with, was enforceable by a writ of mandamus. That was the only remedy: ‘It has been laid down for many years that, if a duty is imposed by statute which but for the statute would not exist, and a remedy for default or breach of that duty is provided by the statute that creates the duty, that is the only remedy. The remedy in this case is under section 299, which points directly to section 15, and shews what is to be done for default of the duty imposed by that section. That is not the remedy sought for in this action, which is brought to recover damages.’

Judges:

Lord Esher MR

Citations:

[1897] 1 QB 619

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875 299

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedGlossop v Heston and Isleworth Local Board 1878
The local authority was held not liable for damage caused by an overflow of their sewage systems which had been adequate when installed but became inadequate over time. . .

Cited by:

CitedMarcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
ConfirmedPasmore v Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council HL 1898
Where an Act creates an obligation, and enforces the performance in a specified manner, it is a general rule that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner.
Earl of Halsbury LC said: ‘The principle that where a specific remedy is given . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.188627

Conservators of the River Thames v Smeed Dean and Co: CA 1897

The erection of a lock or pound lock otherwise than for the maintenance or improvement of navigation would be ultra vires by a Navigation Authority and in all likelihood a nuisance. Chitty LJ said: ‘The Conservators are a statutory body brought into existence for the purpose of preserving, improving and maintaining the navigation of the River Thames . . but the powers granted to them by the 1894 Act are all subservient thereto and except for these purposes no powers are granted to them at all.’ The court discussed the meaning of the word ‘bed’ as to the bed of the river. ‘bed’ in the context of a tidal and non-tidal river meant: ‘. . the soil or ground which is covered by water in the ordinary course of nature – the ground over which the water flows or on which it lies.’

Judges:

Chitty LJ, Smith LJ

Citations:

[1897] 2 QB 334

Statutes:

Thames Conservancy Act 1894

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRowland v The Environment Agency ChD 19-Dec-2002
Public rights of Navigation have since time immemorial at common law existed over the Thames including (unless and until extinguished or ceasing to be exercisable) Hedsor Water. The claimant sought a declaration that rights of navigation over that . .
CitedJones, Regina (on the Application Of) v The Environment Agency Admn 13-Jul-2005
The Environment Agency sought to persuade the claimants that they must pay for licences for their moorings for craft on the Thames. The boat owners said that they had placed poles in the banks for many years, and that because the moorings were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Utilities

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.187537

Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: ECJ 30 Apr 1999

The system in the UK of the government accepting undertakings from water companies as to the steps to be taken to comply with European regulations as to water standards had been used to allow non-compliance. The UK was in breach of requirements.

Citations:

Times 30-Apr-1999, C-340/96, [1999] EUECJ C-340/96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 80/778/EEC, Water Industry Act 1991

European, Utilities

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79307

British Waterways Board v Severn Trent Water Ltd: CA 23 Mar 2001

The parties disputed discharges from a sewer outfall into the Stourbridge canal which had been constructed by a regional water authority in about 1976, under the previous statutory regime. The relevant outfall was therefore already in use at the transfer date pursuant to a right enjoyed by the regional water authorities under the Public Health Act 1936 and transferred to the privatised sewerage undertakers under the Water Act 1989. The powers given to sewerage undertakers did not include a power, either express or implied for a sewerage contractor to lay sewage outfall over land belonging to someone else without their consent. Express powers were given for certain acts including the laying of pipes, but not for discharges. This contrasted with express powers for water undertakers which did include outfalls. No implicit power could be inferred; this was neither necessary, and nor could sufficient precision be achieved.
The Water Industry Act had to be construed as a coherent scheme in its own right, without any a priori assumption that it was intended to reproduce everything in the previous statute law.
Chadwick LJ summarised the position: ‘The fallacy, as it seems to me, lies in the underlying (but unspoken) premise that Parliament must have intended that sewerage undertakers should have facilities to discharge (which, plainly, they do require in order to carry out their functions) without paying for those facilities. Whether or not that premise could have been supported in the context of a public authority charged with functions imposed in the interests of public health, it cannot be supported, as it seems to me, in the context of legislation enacted following a decision to privatise the water industry.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Keene LJJ

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-2001, Gazette 29-Mar-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001, [2001] 3 WLR 613, [2002] Ch 25, [2001] EWCA Civ 276, [2002] EHLR 1, [2001] 3 All ER 673, [2001] Env LR 45, [2001] NPC 53

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991 159, Public Health Act 1936, Water Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBritish Waterways Board v Severn Trent Water Ltd ChD 26-Oct-1999
A water company may have the implied power to discharge surface run-off water from sewers into canals. The powers and duties of water companies and sewerage undertakers were different both under statute and in general. The power to lay a run-off . .

Cited by:

CitedThe Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and Another v United Utilities Water Plc SC 2-Jul-2014
The court was asked: ‘whether a sewerage undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 has a statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses such as the Respondents’ canals without the consent of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Utilities, Land

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78652

Meek v The Whitechapel Board of Works: 1860

An action maintained against a board of works for not keeping a sewer cleaned, whereby it became choked up, and the overflow therefrom ran into the plaintiff’s premises, and quare, whether the defence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, though admissible under the general issue, can be established under the Metropolis Local Management Act.

Citations:

[1860] EngR 127, (1860) 2 F and F 144, (1860) 175 ER 998

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Utilities

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.284966

Jordeson v Sutton, Southcotes and Drypool Gas Co: 1899

The defendants owned land adjacent to that of the plaintiff’s. Both plots were buillt over a deep substratum of wet sand, known as ‘running silt’. The defendants, in order to continue a development, drained the running silt under their own land, but this in turn led to subsidence in the plaintiff’s land as the silt collapsed. By statute the defendant was protected from liability in nuisance.
Held: The withdrawal of the support by draining the silt was a nuisance actionable at law, and the Act did not protect the defendant in these circumstances.

Citations:

[1899] 2 Ch 217

Statutes:

Gas Works Clauses Act 1871 9

Nuisance, Utilities

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.463638

Russell v Shenton: 1842

The cleansing and repairing of drains and sewers is prima facie the duty of him who occupies the premises, and does not devolve upon the owner, merely as such. Therefore a declaration in case fur omitting to cleanse and repair drains and sewers, whereby the plaintiffs adjacent premises suffered damage, is bad on general demurrer if it charge the defendant as the ‘owner and proprietor” of such drains and sewers, unless it also allege some ground of liability. The words ‘owner and proprietor’ do not necessarily import that the party is occupier.

Citations:

[1842] EngR 72, (1842) 3 QB 449, (1842) 114 ER 579

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Utilities

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.307027

Central Electricity Generating Board v Halifax Corporation: HL 1963

Under the 1947 Act, the assets of electricity undertakings were transferred to to electricity boards. Property held by local authorities as authorised undertakers should, on vesting day, vest in the relevant board. A question arose as to whether certain monies had been held by the local authority and the question was referred to the minister, who decided that they had and so the appellant sought to recover the money.
Held: The cause of action accrued at the vesting date, more than six years before the action commenced, even though the appellants could not have proved the monies were held by the respondents as authorised undertakers until the minister had so decided. The minister’s decision and vesting notice did not create a new right of property or chose in action, but merely enabled a pre-existing right of action to be enforced. Albeit that the minister had to decide any dispute of fact relevant to the claim, the plaintiff could have issued proceedings for the recovery of the money at any time after 1 April 1948.
Lord Reid said: ‘No new right or liability came into existence at [the date of the minister’s decision]. It is quite clear, and it is now admitted by the appellants, that the effect of the minister’s decision was merely to prove that this sum had belonged to the appellants ever since the vesting date. It created no new right of property or chose in action: it merely enabled a pre-existing right to be enforced.
A number of cases were cited in argument. None was directly in point and I have found nothing in any of these cases which conflicts with the view that a cause of action can exist although one of the facts essential to the cause of action can only be proved otherwise than by evidence led in court and has not yet been proved when action is brought. If the appellants had begun an action within six years of the vesting date, and had applied to the minister for his decision when the respondents traversed their allegation that the sum sued for had been held or used by the respondents in their capacity of electricity undertakers, proceedings in the action could, if necessary, have been stayed to await the minister’s decision. But they did not do that and, in my judgment, this action is barred by section 2(1)(d) of the Limitation Act.’

Judges:

Lord Reid

Citations:

[1963] AC 785

Statutes:

Electricity Act 1947, Limitation Act 1939 2(1)(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Dissenting dicta approvedLeivers v Barber Walker and Co Ltd CA 1943
Goddard LJ (dissenting) said that section 2(1)(d) of the 1939 Act changed the former position altogether, leaving the provision for limitation as regards specialties to apply only to deeds and other documents under seal (or to claims other than for . .

Cited by:

CitedLegal Services Commission v Rasool CA 5-Mar-2008
The defendant had in 1993 obtained legal aid. Work was done but the certificate was then revoked. The Commission sought repayment of the sums paid on account to his solicitors. He replied that the claim was out of time. The Commission argued that . .
CitedLegal Services Commission v Henthorn QBD 4-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to recover overpayments said to have been made to the defendant barrister in the early 1990s. Interim payments on account had been made, but these were not followed by final accounts. The defendant, now retired, said that the . .
CitedLegal Services Commission v Henthorn CA 30-Nov-2011
The Commission sought to recover what it said were payments made on account to the respondent barrister, but only after many years had passed. The Commission argued that time only began to run once it requested repayment.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedSwansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Utilities

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.268785

Attorney General v Lewes Corporation: 1911

The local authority was accused of discharging crude sewage into an intermittent partially tidal stream.
Held: Swinfen Eady J said: ‘The question then arises, is the culvert a sewer? The plaintiffs contend it is. The defendants dispute it. The mere pollution of a natural stream or watercourse by turning sewage into it does not convert it into a sewer. On the other hand, if the watercourse has become substantially a sewer, the fact that at certain periods of the year clean water flows into it will not in my opinion prevent it from being a sewer. The question is one of fact and degree in each case. See Falconar v. South Shields Corporation (1895) 11 TLR 223. In that case Lindley L.J. pointed out that the stream had changed its character completely and had become a sewer in the ordinary sense of the word, i.e., a channel for the reception and carrying away of sewage. It was a dirty, filthy sewer.’

Judges:

Swinfen Eady J

Citations:

[1911] 2 Ch 495

Cited by:

CitedRaglan Housing Association Ltd v Southampton City Council and Southern Water Services Ltd CA 30-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages in nuisance from the defendants saying that a channel for which they were responsible flooded causing damage. The defendant appealed a finding that the culvert had become a sewer. It had been a natural stream, but had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Local Government

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.260139

Bethnal Green Vestry v London School Board: HL 1898

The owner of a block of houses laid a pipe in the yards at the rear of the houses to carry off their drainage and connected the pipe with a sewer belonging to the Vestry in a neighbouring street. No notice was been given to the Vestry or of any order having been made by them as required by section 74, nor was there evidence of approval having been obtained of the Metropolitan Board of Works under section 69. The block was acquired by the school and when the pipe was found to be defective the school called upon the Vestry to repair it. The Vestry declined to do so on the ground that the pipe was not a sewer vested in or repairable by them. The issue was whether the pipe came within the definition of ‘sewer’ in section 250.
Held: No appropriate order had been made. The work was done with the sanction and authority both of the Vestry and of the Metropolitan Board of Works. If vested in the Vestry this was repairable by the Vestry. Therefore the only question was whether it was so vested in the Vestry. The words absolutely wide and unlimited, ‘all sewers’ thereafter to be made, and it is only sought to cut down those words by suggesting it must mean all sewers lawfully made. There was in this case good ground for presuming that the connection of this sewer for draining the houses with the sewer received the sanction of the Vestry, and, in the absence of any distinct proof to the contrary, received the sanction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. However, even if this could not be made out, it would not follow, if the sanction of the Vestry was given, that the sewer could be held not to be a sewer within the meaning of s.68 merely because the Vestry had failed to perform their statutory duty of first submitting the plans to the Metropolitan Board of Works and obtaining their sanction. It does not follow that because the requisite sanctions have not been obtained the thing constructed is not a sewer. In the language of this legislation I think it is nonetheless a sewer within the meaning of the Act even though that sewer may have come into existence without an assent or approval which, as between public bodies, the statute requires.

Judges:

Lord Herschell

Citations:

[1898] AC 190

Statutes:

Metropolis Local Management Act 1855 69 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Utilities

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.179847

Russell v Coventry and Solihull Waste Disposal Co Ltd: CA 11 Jun 1998

For a site supplying several services including waste management and lesser electricity generation, the primary purpose governed its rating, and the site did not have the exemptions from commercial rates which were allowed to generator sites. An explanatory note may be referred to as an aid to construction where the statutory instrument to which it is attached is ambiguous.

Citations:

Times 11-Jun-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 2093

Statutes:

Gas and Electricity Industries (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1990 (1990 No 804)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Montila and Others HL 25-Nov-2004
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Utilities

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88925

A E Beckett and Sons (Lyndons) Ltd and Others v Midlands Electricity Plc: CA 10 Jan 2001

The claimants alleged that they had suffered loss as a result of the defendants’ breach of regulation 25(1) of the 1988 Regulations.
Held: The statutory power of an electricity supplier, to exclude by contract his own liability for consequential losses, arising from a failure in supply, was restricted to losses flowing from power interruptions, and did not extend to losses arising from its negligence in installing equipment. The section was ambiguous, and Pepper v Hart was properly used to seek support. Parliamentary debates were quite clear as to the purpose of the section.

Judges:

May LJ, Laws LJ, Lord Phillips MR

Citations:

Times 10-Jan-2001, Gazette 01-Feb-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 312, [2001] 1 WLR 281

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Electricity Act 1989 21, Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 (SI 1988 no 1057) 25(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromA E Beckett and Sons (Lyndons) Ltd and Others v Midlands Electricity Plc QBD 2000
The claimants alleged that they had suffered loss as a result of the defendants’ breach of regulation 25(1) of the 1988 Regulations. . .

Cited by:

CitedMorrison Sports Ltd and Others v Scottish Power SC 28-Jul-2010
A fire caused substantial damage to buildings. It arose from a ‘shim’ placed in a fuse box which then overheated. The parties disputed whose employee had inserted the shim. The Act under which the Regulations had been made was repealed and replaced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Consumer, Utilities

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77575

United States v Ramsey: 6 Jun 1977

United States Supreme Court – Title 19 U.S.C. ss 482 and implementing postal regulations authorize customs officials to inspect incoming international mail when they have a ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ that the mail contains illegally imported merchandise, although the regulations prohibit the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant. Acting pursuant to the statute and regulations, a customs inspector, based on the facts that certain incoming letter-sized airmail envelopes were from Thailand, a known source of narcotics, and were bulky and much heavier than a normal airmail letter, opened the envelopes for inspection at the General Post Office in New York City, considered a ‘border’ for border-search purposes, and ultimately the envelopes were found to contain heroin. Respondents were subsequently indicted for and convicted of narcotics offenses, the District Court having denied their motion to suppress the heroin. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applicable to persons, baggage, and mailed packages did not apply to the opening of international mail, and that the Constitution requires that before such mail is opened a showing of probable cause must be made and a warrant obtained.
Held:
1. Under the circumstances, the customs inspector had ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ that there was merchandise or contraband in the envelopes, and therefore the search was plainly authorized by the statute. Pp. 611-616.
2. The Fourth Amendment does not interdict the actions taken by the inspector in opening and searching the envelopes. Pp. 616-625.
(a) Border searches without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 616-619.
(b) The inclusion of international mail within the border-search exception does not represent any ‘extension’ of that exception. The exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country, and no different constitutional standards should apply simply because the envelopes were mailed, not carried the critical fact being that the envelopes cross the border and enter the country, not that they are brought in by one mode of transportation rather than another. It is their entry into the country from without it that makes a resulting search ‘reasonable.’ Pp. 619-621.
(c) The border-search exception is not based on the doctrine of ‘exigent circumstances,’ but is a longstanding, historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general principle that a warrant be obtained. Pp. 621-622.
(d) The opening of international mail under the guidelines of the statute only when the customs official has reason to believe the mail contains other than correspondence, while the reading of any correspondence inside the envelopes is forbidden by the regulations, does not impermissibly chill the exercise of free speech under the First Amendment, and any ‘chill’ that might exist under such circumstances is not only ‘minimal’ but is also wholly subjective. Pp. 623-624.

Citations:

[1977] USSC 97, 431 US 606, 97 SCt 1972, 52 LEd2d 617

Links:

Worldlii

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

CitedBeghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Police, Immigration

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.590308

Baron v Portslade Urban District Council: 1900

The local authority was held liable for omitting to clean a sewer. The existence of a procedure for the enforcement of statutory duties did not exclude common law remedies for common law torts, such as a nuisance arising from failure to keep a sewer properly cleaned.

Citations:

[1900] 2 QB 588

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMarcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
CitedPride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd v British Celanese Ltd CA 1953
The plaintiff brought an action for nuisance against the local authority for having discharged insufficiently treated effluent into the river Derwent.
Held: The plaintiffs: ‘have a perfectly good cause of action for nuisance, if they can show . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.188632

Regina v Parlby: 1889

Sewage works could not be treated as ‘premises’ under the section. ‘The very magnitude of the authority conferred upon justices by the sections under consideration affords a powerful argument that they are intended for ordinary and comparatively simple cases . .’

Citations:

(1889) 22 QBD 520

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875 91

Cited by:

Not bindingHounslow London Borough Council v Thames Water Utilities Ltd Admn 23-May-2003
An abatement notice was served on the respondent in respect of the stink emanating from their sewage works. The magistrates decided that the workls did not constitute premises within the section, following Parlby.
Held: Parlby was not binding, . .
CitedVella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Nuisance, Magistrates

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183839

Durrant v Branksome Urban District Council: 1897

The right of discharge was implicit in the express terms of section 17 of the 1875 Act, which by restricting the right to discharge foul water into any watercourse impliedly recognised the existence of a right to discharge treated effluent and surface water.

Judges:

North J

Citations:

[1897] 2 Ch 291

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromDurrant v Branksome Urban District Council CA 1897
A right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses was impliedly conferred on local authorities by the Public Health Act 1875. Section 15 of that Act imposed on local authorities a duty to cause such sewers to be made . .
CitedThe Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and Another v United Utilities Water Plc SC 2-Jul-2014
The court was asked: ‘whether a sewerage undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 has a statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses such as the Respondents’ canals without the consent of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.551306

Smith v Cawdle Fen, Ely (Cambridge) Commissioners: 1938

The plaintiff’s land had been damaged by flooding. The defendants had power to execute works which might have prevented the floods.
Held: The defendants were under no duty, having only a power. The statute did not direct or require the defendant to do such work.

Judges:

du Parcq J

Citations:

[1938] 4 All ER 64, (1938) 82 Sol Jo 890, (1938) 37 LGR 22, (1938) 160 LT 61

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEast Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent HL 1941
An exceptionally high spring tide caused many breaches of the banks of the River Deben, and extensive flooding, including the respondent’s farm. By section 6 of the 1930 Act, the appellants had a statutory power to maintain the flood defences, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Local Government

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.472056

Gillett v Kent Rivers Catchment Board: 1938

Judges:

Stable J

Citations:

[1938] 4 All ER 810

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEast Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent HL 1941
An exceptionally high spring tide caused many breaches of the banks of the River Deben, and extensive flooding, including the respondent’s farm. By section 6 of the 1930 Act, the appellants had a statutory power to maintain the flood defences, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Utilities

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.472057

Regina v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, Ex parte Central Electricity Generating Board: CA 1982

The CEGB wanted to undertake a survey using its statutory powers to check whether land might be suitable for a nuclear power station, and wanted the police to prevent demonstrators from preventing the survey. It now requested an order of mandamus to oblige the chief constable to provide the level of support requested.
Held: The appeal against refusal of mandamus was rejected. Such a police decision was not one to be interfered with by a court of law. The CEGB should first consider its own self-help remedies. It had the power to use the resaonable minimum of force, even though this might risk a breach of the peace.

Citations:

[1982] QB 458, [1981] 3 WLR 967, [1981] 3 All ER 826

Statutes:

Electricity Act 1957 35, Town and Country Planning Act 1971 281(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCorner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
CitedCommissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Raissi CA 12-Nov-2008
The Commissioner appealed against an award of damages for false imprisonment. The claimant had been arrested shortly after a terrorist attack. The judge had held that they had no reasonable belief of his involvement. The Commissioner did not now . .
CitedMcConnell v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 1990
The plaintiff sought damages from the police. She had gone into a store and refused to leave when so requested. The police officer escorted her from the premises. She tried to re-enter the premises, and the officer exercised his common law right to . .
CitedHumberside Police v McQuade CA 12-Jul-2001
Defendant’s appeal against an order giving judgment for the claimant in the action for damages to be assessed for wrongful arrest and personal injury. The claimant had been arrested in his home, purportedly for a breach of the peace. There was no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Police, Utilities

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.276255

British Railways Board v Tonbridge and Malling District Council: CA 1981

The court was asked whether a culvert under a railway carried a sewer or a watercourse. It appeared that the construction of the railway had interrupted natural watercourses which drained a large catchment area, and the culvert was to carry the water away despite the obstacle created by the railway embankment. If it was a sewer the Board could seek to have it vested in the local authority under section 17 of the Public Health Act 1936, but this did not apply if it was not a sewer but a watercourse.
Held: Oliver LJ said: ‘Granted that in certain circumstances that which started life as a watercourse can become a sewer, that is not easily established where all that has happened is that water, whether surface water or foul water, has been made to flow through an outfall into an existing natural stream. One has to ask whether the circumstances are such that the stream has substantially lost its original character and taken on the character of a sewer and that does not occur simply because the stream is made to carry a quantity of sewage.’ and
‘What is clear is that something very much more than the mere discharge of sewage into a stream (and, a fortiori, the mere discharge of pure surface water) is required before its status is changed to that of a sewer (see, for instance, Glasgow, Yoker and Clydebank Railway Company v. MacIndoe (1896) 24 R. (Ct. of Sess.) 160). Thus, for instance, if circumstances are such that what was originally an agricultural stream comes to carry sewage in such substantial quantities that its character is completely changed (as occurred in Falconar v. Corporation of South Shields (1895) 11 T.L.R. 223) it may no doubt become a sewer within the ordinary meaning of the word.’
After citing a passage from the speech of Lord Maugham in the George Legge case and went on to say:
‘In the instant case there has been nothing approaching the situation envisaged by Lord Maugham in the passage I have read. All that has happened is that outfalls have been constructed channelling the surface drainage of the built-up area into the existing streams so as to increase to some extent the flow of surface water which they carry away; and it is, Mr Nugee submits, quite impossible to say that these streams have become, as a result of such increased flow of surface water, ‘sewers’ within the ordinary meaning of the word.
We find Mr Nugee’s argument persuasive. On the facts as found or agreed at the trial it is, in our judgment, clear that there has been no alteration in the essential character of the three watercourses and the culvert since 1840 and the mere fact that the surface drainage of the built-up area has been collected and diverted into them through a number of outfalls so as to produce a significant increase in the volume of water carried off, cannot possibly constitute them, either individually or collectively, sewers or a sewer within the ordinary meaning of that term.’

Judges:

Oliver LJ

Citations:

(1981) 79 LGR 565

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRaglan Housing Association Ltd v Southampton City Council and Southern Water Services Ltd CA 30-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages in nuisance from the defendants saying that a channel for which they were responsible flooded causing damage. The defendant appealed a finding that the culvert had become a sewer. It had been a natural stream, but had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Local Government

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.260140

Birkdale District Electric Supply Co. Ltd v The Corporation of Southport: 1926

The appellants, having bound themselves not to exercise their discretion in the raising of electricity prices, were held not to have incompetently fettered their discretion, bearing in mind the commercial purposes for which the discretion was conferred and the commercial reasons for which the price fixing agreement had been entered to. Lord Birkenhead said that there is: ‘a well-established principle of law, that if a person or public body is entrusted by the legislature with certain powers and duties expressly or impliedly for public purposes, those persons or bodies cannot divest themselves of these powers and duties. They cannot enter into any contract or take any action incompatible with the due exercise of their powers or the discharge of their duties.’

Judges:

Lord Birkenhead

Citations:

[1926] AC 355

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Liverpool Corporation ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association CA 1972
A number of taxi cab owners challenged a decision of the Council to increase the numbers of hackney cabs operating in the city. At a public meeting with the council prior to the decision, the chairman had given a public undertaking that the numbers . .
CitedRegina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Nov-2005
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants . .
CitedKilby v Basildon District Council Admn 26-Jul-2006
Tenants complained that the authority landlord had purported to vary a clause in his secure tenancy agreement which gave certain management rights to tenants.
Held: The powers to let on secure tenancies were governed by statute. The clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Utilities

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.237255

Hart v Anglian Water Services Ltd: CACD 31 Jul 2003

In a private prosecution, Mr Hart complained that the defendant had allowed untreated sewage to be discharged into controlled waters. The defendant pleaded guilty, but now appealed the fine of andpound;200,000.
Held: The sentence was imposed on the basis that the discharge was substantial, and the effect on the environment disastrous. The defendant had many convictions for similar offences. Such discharges were properly characterised as criminal, and it was a question of what priority was given to prevention by the company. There was no standard tariff or scale of penalties, and the court declined to set one, referring only to a guideline booklet produced by the Magistrates association. Here the fine remained manifestly excessive, and was reduced to andpound;60,000.

Citations:

Times 18-Aug-2003

Statutes:

Water Resources Act 1991 85(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Criminal Sentencing, Utilities

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185768

Bradford v Mayor of Eastbourne: 1896

Lord Russell CJ said of section 13: ‘the vesting . . is not a giving of the property in the sewer and in the soil . . but giving such ownership and such rights only as are necessary for the purpose of carrying out the duties of a local authority’

Judges:

Lord Russell CJ

Citations:

[1896] 2 QB 205

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875 13

Cited by:

CitedThe Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and Another v United Utilities Water Plc SC 2-Jul-2014
The court was asked: ‘whether a sewerage undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 has a statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses such as the Respondents’ canals without the consent of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Local Government, Utilities

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.551307

Durrant v Branksome Urban District Council: CA 1897

A right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses was impliedly conferred on local authorities by the Public Health Act 1875. Section 15 of that Act imposed on local authorities a duty to cause such sewers to be made as might be necessary for effectually draining their district. The extent of that duty was largely demand-led. This was because section 21 entitled any owner or occupier of premises in a local authority’s area to connect to a public sewer, and section 18 provided that a local authority should not be entitled to discontinue the use of a sewer unless it made available another sewer which was as effectual for the use of those served by the existing one. The critical sections from which the Court of Appeal derived the right of discharge into private watercourses were sections 16 and 17. Section 16 empowered a local authority to ‘carry any sewer’ through, across or under any street or road or, on notice to the owner or occupier, any land within their district. Section 17 was a proviso in the following terms: ‘Nothing in this Act shall authorise any local authority to make or use any sewer, drain or outfall for the purpose of conveying sewage or filthy water into any natural stream or watercourse, or into any canal pond or lake until such sewage or filthy water is freed from all excrementitious or other foul or noxious matter such as would affect or deteriorate the purity and quality of the water in such stream or watercourse or in such canal pond or lake.’

Judges:

Lindley LJ, Lopes LJ, Chitty LJ

Citations:

[1897] 2 Ch 291

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875 15 16 17 21

Citing:

Appeal fromDurrant v Branksome Urban District Council 1897
The right of discharge was implicit in the express terms of section 17 of the 1875 Act, which by restricting the right to discharge foul water into any watercourse impliedly recognised the existence of a right to discharge treated effluent and . .

Cited by:

CitedThe Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and Another v United Utilities Water Plc SC 2-Jul-2014
The court was asked: ‘whether a sewerage undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 has a statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses such as the Respondents’ canals without the consent of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.551305

Heard v Brymbo Steel Company Ltd: CA 1947

The plaintiff was injured in an explosion at work arising from a short-circuit occurring because of breaches by the second defendants, the North Wales Power Co Ltd, of the 1937 regulations, 24 and 25. The 1899 Act applied, and it provided that undertakers would be liable for all accidents, damages and injuries happening through their act or ‘default’. The word ‘default’ was also found in regulation 39.
Held: The power company was liable. Somervell LJ explained that the default, a breach of regulations 24 and 25, and which might cause damage or injury under regulation 39, was a default for which undertakers were answerable under the 1899 Act. They were liable not because the breaches of regulations 24 and 25 of the 1937 Regulations per se gave rise to civil liability, but because the default which constituted the breach of those regulations was also a ‘default’ which made the company liable to pay damages under para 77 of the schedule to the 1899 Act.

Judges:

Morton, Tucker and Somervell LJJ

Citations:

[1947] KB 69

Statutes:

Electricity Supply Regulations 1937 24 25 39, Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899

Cited by:

CitedMorrison Sports Ltd and Others v Scottish Power SC 28-Jul-2010
A fire caused substantial damage to buildings. It arose from a ‘shim’ placed in a fuse box which then overheated. The parties disputed whose employee had inserted the shim. The Act under which the Regulations had been made was repealed and replaced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Personal Injury

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.421502

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 right of the purchaser to connect a 12 inch diameter pipe to a 9 inch diameter public sewer at a particular location, pursuant to section 34 of the 1936 Act.
Held: The condition was not satisfied, since there remained too much uncertainty.
Walton J said: ‘However, it does appear to me that, wide as the words of subsection (1) may be, and for the moment ignoring the opening qualification, they do not confer upon an individual the right to connect his sewer to the water authority’s sewer at any point which he may choose. In most cases, of course, the matter will be quite academic. There will be the water authority’s sewer, going along the road; a new house is built in the road; and quite obviously and clearly the owner will expect to have a right to drain into that sewer, and it would be very difficult, assuming that there are no problems under the proviso to subsection (1), to imagine a set of circumstances where the water authority would be entitled to say that he must not connect to that sewer but to some other sewer. Even so, if the new house was built at a crossroads and there were available sewers in both roads, I can see no reason why the owner should be entitled to drain into the sewer of his choice if the water authority required him to drain into the other, which might, for example, well be a relief sewer expressly provided for the district because the other sewer was approaching capacity. Similarly, I see no reason why the owner is entitled to connect at point X rather than an adjacent point Y, if the water authority requires him to connect at Y.’

Judges:

Walton J

Citations:

[1977] EG 735

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBarratt 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 . .
CitedBarratt 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 . .
CitedBarratt 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: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.383813

Strabag (Law Relating To Undertakings): ECJ 16 Jun 2005

Europa Public procurement contracts – Directive 93/38/EEC – Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors – Concepts of ‘operation’ and ‘provision’ of networks providing a service to the public in the field of transport by railway – Railway infrastructure works

Citations:

[2005] EUECJ C-463/03, C-462/03

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 93/38/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities, Transport

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.226970

A E Beckett and Sons (Lyndons) Ltd and Others v Midlands Electricity Plc: QBD 2000

The claimants alleged that they had suffered loss as a result of the defendants’ breach of regulation 25(1) of the 1988 Regulations.

Judges:

Peregrine Simon QC

Citations:

Unreported, 2000

Citing:

CitedX (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromA E Beckett and Sons (Lyndons) Ltd and Others v Midlands Electricity Plc CA 10-Jan-2001
The claimants alleged that they had suffered loss as a result of the defendants’ breach of regulation 25(1) of the 1988 Regulations.
Held: The statutory power of an electricity supplier, to exclude by contract his own liability for . .
CitedMorrison Sports Ltd and Others v Scottish Power SC 28-Jul-2010
A fire caused substantial damage to buildings. It arose from a ‘shim’ placed in a fuse box which then overheated. The parties disputed whose employee had inserted the shim. The Act under which the Regulations had been made was repealed and replaced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.421503

Stevens v Aldershot Gas, Water and District Lighting Co: 1932

The plaintiff claimed for damage to electrical apparatus and loss of profits because the defendants had failed to supply electric current at the voltage at which they had said that they would.
Held: The question was ‘whether, if they have failed in that obligation, the plaintiff has a remedy at common law or is she limited to penalties in a court of summary jurisdiction?’ His Lordship held that the plaintiff was limited to the penalties.

Judges:

Macnaghten J

Citations:

(1932) LJKB 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMorrison Sports Ltd and Others v Scottish Power SC 28-Jul-2010
A fire caused substantial damage to buildings. It arose from a ‘shim’ placed in a fuse box which then overheated. The parties disputed whose employee had inserted the shim. The Act under which the Regulations had been made was repealed and replaced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Damages

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.421501

Metropolitan Water Board v Paine: 1907

The context was used showed that ‘premises’ mean land with buildings. Land still vacant on which the owner proposed in the future to erect buildings did not qualify as premises within section 79 of the 1853 Act.

Judges:

Ridley J

Citations:

[1907] 1 KB 285

Statutes:

East London Waterworks Act 1853

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

MentionedMajorstake Ltd v Curtis HL 6-Feb-2008
The tenant had served a notice under the 2003 Act to acquire a new lease. The landlord in replying that he wished to redevelop the site, sought himself to define the extent of the ‘estate’ to include only the tenant’s apartment and a neighbouring . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Utilities

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.266087

Smith’s Case: 1670

An order of the Commissioners of Sewers was brought before the court. The commissioners pointed to a statute which provided that they should not be compelled to certify or return their proceedings.
Held: The contention was rejected: ‘Yet it was never doubted, but that this court might question the legality of their orders notwithstanding: and you cannot oust the jurisdiction of this court without particular words in Acts of Parliament. There is no jurisdiction that is uncontrollable by this court.’

Judges:

Kelynge CJ

Citations:

(1670) 1 Mod Rep 44

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore; Re Gilmore’s Application CA 25-Feb-1957
The claimant had received two injuries resulting in his total blindness. He sought an order of certiorari against the respondent who had found only a 20% disability. The tribunal responded that its decision, under the Act was final.
Held: In . .
ApprovedGrenville v Royal College of Physicians 1700
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Administrative

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.222189

Wills Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School: HL 1976

The public right of navigation (PRN) is a right to public use of the river. The river may be used by the public for purposes of exercise and recreation as well as transport and commerce. At common law PRN cannot be lost by lack of use over time. ‘A public right of way on highways is established by use over the land of a proprietor.’ The existence of the right does not depend upon there being two termini for any journey. The right may embrace the passage of articles without human accompaniment, for instance, the floating of logs on the current either singly or in rafts.

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Salmon, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton

Citations:

[1976] SC (HL) 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
CitedAttorney-General (ex relatione Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd) v Brotherton HL 5-Dec-1991
The appellants owned land through which flowed the river Derwent. Attempts were to be made to restore the river to navigability. The appellants denied that any public rights existed over the river.
Held: The 1932 Act could only give rise to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Transport, Scotland, Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.190125

Ellis v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co; Attorney-General v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co: 1853

The court considered a relator action: ‘Although the name of the Attorney-General is used, it is quite clear that he has never been consulted, and that any advantage from these litigations to the public is the last thing which those who have set it on foot have thought of.’

Citations:

(1853) 2 E and B 767, [1853] EngR 221, (1852-1853) 3 De G M and G 304, (1853) 43 ER 119, [1853] EngR 919, (1853) 2 El and Bl 767, (1853) 118 ER 955

Links:

Commonlii, Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence, Utilities

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188837

Hesketh v Birmingham Corporation: 1924

The court rejected a claim for nuisance where a claim was available under the 1875 Act.

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1924] 1 KB 260

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875

Cited by:

CitedMarcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Utilities

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188630

Glossop v Heston and Isleworth Local Board: 1878

The local authority was held not liable for damage caused by an overflow of their sewage systems which had been adequate when installed but became inadequate over time.

Citations:

(1878) 12 ChD 102

Cited by:

AppliedRobinson v Workington Corporation CA 1897
Mr Robinson’s houses were damaged by water overflowing from the council’s public sewers. The sewers were adequate until new houses were built. He claimed damages in respect of the council’s failure to build a new sewer of sufficient dimensions to . .
CitedBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council CA 8-Jan-2001
A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Nuisance

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188628

Merlin v British Nuclear Fuels plc: 1990

The plaintiffs claimed that their house had been damaged by radioactive material that had been discharged into the Irish Sea from Sellafield which had subsequently become deposited in their house as dust.
Held: The l965 Act required them to established that there had been damage to property, meaning tangible property. He went on to reject the plaintiffs’ claim that the house included the air space within the walls, ceilings and floors and that it had been damaged by the presence of radioactive material which had resulted in the house being rendered less valuable. All that had happened was that the house had been contaminated and that did not amount to damage to property which was the type of damage for which the Act provided compensation. The fact that the house was less valuable was the economic result of the presence of radioactive material, not the result of damage to the house from the radioactive properties of the material.

Judges:

Gatehouse J

Citations:

[1990] 2 QB 557, [1991] CLY 2662, [1990] 3 WLR 383

Statutes:

Nuclear Installations Act 1965 7 8 9 10 11 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Utilities

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188045

Rex v Betts: 1850

A navigation authority’s powers to build obstructions to navigation were confined to situations where they were aids to navigation.

Citations:

(1850) 16 QB 1022

Cited by:

CitedRowland v The Environment Agency ChD 19-Dec-2002
Public rights of Navigation have since time immemorial at common law existed over the Thames including (unless and until extinguished or ceasing to be exercisable) Hedsor Water. The claimant sought a declaration that rights of navigation over that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Utilities

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187536

Paul v Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications: 1973

The defendant had a receiver tuned to receive emergency fire brigade messages. He committed an offence under the section.

Citations:

[1973] RTR 245

Statutes:

Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 5(b)(i)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Knightsbridge Crown Court ex parte Foot Admn 29-Jan-1998
A device which tested for police radar speed check did not intercept a message between persons and therefore was not unlawful. ‘a signal in this context is not a mere electronic impulse but is rather a sign or something of meaning to another person. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Utilities

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187451

Cargill v Gotts: CA 1981

The Act prohibited abstraction of water from a river without a licence from the Water Authority. The defendant had no such licence, but asserted that having extracted water over many years from the mill pond, he had acquired the right to do so: ‘The Court will not recognise an easement established by illegal activity’. The court considered the effect of the change in extent of usage. The dominant owner had obtained by prescription a right to extract water from a pond on the servient land for the purpose of watering his animals on the dominant land. While remaining agricultural in nature, the use of the dominant land subsequently changed to arable, and there was a resultant substantial increase in the water taken from the servient pond, because the water was now used for crop-spraying. This was held to be a permissible enjoyment of the easement. ‘Water used for crop spraying is just as much used for agricultural purposes as water used for bullocks and the fact that more water may be required for crop spraying than for watering bullocks is not sufficient to destroy or alter the nature of the right asserted or the easement acquired.’ and ‘In my judgment, it is a mistake to concentrate on gallonage and detailed user.’

Judges:

Templeman LJ, Lawton LJ, Brandon LJ

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 441, [1981] CLY 742

Statutes:

Water Resources Act 1963

Cited by:

CitedRoland Brandwood and others v Bakewell Management Ltd CA 30-Jan-2003
House owners had used vehicular access across a common to get to their houses for many years. The commons owner required them to purchase the right, and they replied that they had acquired the right by lost modern grant and/or by prescription.
CitedHanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd CA 9-Jun-1993
The owner of a common appealed a finding that the neighbouring land owner had acquired by prescription a right of way across the common to use a track for commercial vehicles (buses) to get to the property (the bus depot).
Held: An easement . .
CitedTinsley v Milligan CA 1992
The court considered the defence of illegal user to a claim to have established an easement by prescription: ‘These authorities seem to me to establish that when applying the ‘ex turpi causa’ maxim in a case in which a defence of illegality has been . .
CitedMcAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson and Another CA 27-Feb-2004
The defendant blocked the line of a sewer. The claimant alleged that it had an easement and sought the cost of building the alternative pipe. The question to be answered was ‘Where an easement is granted by implication on the sale of a property, . .
CitedBakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others HL 1-Apr-2004
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Utilities

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.179843

Evolution (Shinfield) Llp v British Telecommunications Plc [2019] UkUT 127 (LC): UTLC 15 Apr 2019

Electronic Communications Code – Removal of Apparatus – whether neighbouring landowner has right to require removal of electronic communications apparatus from route of proposed new access – paras 38, 40, Sch.3A, Communications Act 2003 – reference dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 127 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Utilities

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.640511

Montgomerie and Co Ltd v Haddington Burgh: HL 21 Feb 1908

The Burgh Sewerage, Drainage, and Water Supply (Scotland) Act 1901, sec. 5, enacts-‘The powers and duties of the town council of any burgh, as the authority under the principal Act [ i.e., by sec. 1, the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892 (55 and 56 Vict. cap. 55)] with reference to sewerage and drainage or water supply, shall extend to the whole area of the burgh as existing for the purposes of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897, and the town council of any burgh as the authority under the principal Act, in addition to the powers conferred upon them by the principal Act or any other Act, shall, with reference to sewerage and drainage or water supply within such area, have the same rights, powers, and privileges as are conferred by the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 upon local authorities under that Act in districts other than burghs, with the exception of the rights, powers, and privileges conferred by sections one hundred and twenty-two and one hundred and thirty-one of the last-mentioned Act, to which sections the present section shall not apply, and in so far as necessary for giving effect to this enactment the last-mentioned Act, and the Acts and parts of Acts incorporated therewith, are, subject to the necessary modifications, incorporated with the principal Act. . . ‘
Held that under the above-quoted section a burgh, in the formation of sewers, is entitled to proceed either (1) under the provisions of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, or (2) under the provisions of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897, both of which are a complete code within themselves; and in particular, having proceeded under the Act of 1897, a burgh is not bound to obtain the consent of proprietors required by sec. 217 of the Act of 1892.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Robertson, and Lord Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 337

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Local Government, Utilities

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621495

Aberdeen Corporation Water Order: HL 21 Oct 1915

The purposes of this Order were the construction of new water-works and the abstraction of an additional supply of water from the river Dee for the City of Aberdeen. All opposition, including that of the counties of Aberdeen and Kincardine and the burgh of Banchory, had been withdrawn, save that on behalf of the District Board of the River Dee District (representing the salmon-fishing interests of the river) and of Sir Victor Mackenzie, Bart., and other riparian owners.

The Local Government Board had reported to the Commissioners with regard to (1) the omission from the incorporated sections of the Lands Clauses (Scotland) Act, of section 127 of that Act, which provides that until the works are completed the promoters are to make good any deficiency of land tax, poor’s rate, andc., caused by land being taken, and (2) the insertion of a clause providing for the accommodation of workmen during the construction of the new works in pursuance of General Order 101 ( a). The omission referred to (1) had been rectified, and a clause had been inserted to meet the second point (2), which, although not in the form suggested by the Local Government Board inasmuch as it provided for accommodation for dealing with cases of infectious as well as other disease, was not objected to by the Board.
The water supply of Aberdeen was obtained by abstracting water from the river Dee at Cairnton, 19 miles from Aberdeen. Originally power to take 6 million gallons per day had been obtained, and in 1885 power to take an additional 2 million gallons was granted. No compensation water scheme existed. It was now proposed to obtain power to abstract an additional 3 million gallons per day, and that without compensation water. The objectors sought that a condition of the passing of the Order should be that the promoters must apply in the following year for power to construct a compensation water reservoir, and suggested that some power to regulate the use of it should be conferred on them. It was stated that the minimum flow of the river at Cairnton was 120 million gallons per day, with a maximum flow of over 1000 million, and an average flow of about 500 million gallons per day, and that at the most the abstraction of the additional 3 million gallons would not reduce by 3-16ths of an inch the level of the water, which had a minimum depth in the main channel of 15 inches.
The Commissioners found the preamble proved, and inserted no condition as to compensation water, being of opinion that in all the circumstances of the case it was not necessary to make such provision.
Clauses were adjusted.

Judges:

Lord Southwark, the Earl of Moray, and Mr Alpheus C. Morton, MP

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 863, 53 SLR 863

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Utilities

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620695

Renerga v AB – Energijos skirstymo operatorius: ECJ 12 Jul 2018

Energy – Public Service Obligations – Opinion – Request for a preliminary ruling – Internal market in electricity – Directive 2009/72/EC – Article 3(2) – Public service obligations – Article 3(6) – Financial compensation – Article 3(15) – Member State obligation to inform the Commission of all measures adopted to fulfil universal service and public service obligations – Article 36, point (f) – Regulatory authority

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:571, C-238/17, [2018] EUECJ C-238/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620041

Kirkcaldy District Water: HL 24 Jul 1912

Provisional Order – Water – District Water Supply – Existing Private Water Systems Supplying Works and Landed Estates within District – Rating of Property already Privately Supplied – Obligation to Take Over Private Water-works at Valuation.

Citations:

[1912] UKHL 1055

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Utilities

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619253

Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order: HL 2 Apr 1912

This Order was promoted by the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company. Its main purposes were (1) to confer power on the company to make some new arrangements with regard to its capital, and (2) to confirm an agreement entered into with the County Council of Lanarkshire, whereby the company undertook to supply electricity in certain special districts, and to carry out the County Council’s obligations under certain Provisional Orders previously obtained by them from the Board of Trade for the supply of electrical power in these districts.
So far as this agreement related to the district of Shettleston and Tollcross, the Order was opposed by the Corporation of Glasgow, on the ground that a proposal was at the moment pending before Parliament for the inclusion of that district within the city, and that in the event of success the Corporation would themselves be the natural parties to supply electricity there.
In a report by the Board of Trade which was referred to the Commissioners under General Order 95, the Board intimated that in their opinion the agreement above mentioned was open to objection on the ground that similar agreements had proved unsatisfactory in other cases. The Board further raised the question whether the proposed clause confirming this agreement was excluded from the jurisdiction of the Secretary for Scotland under sec. 16 (2) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1899, which provided as follows-‘Nothing contained in this Act shall . . confer upon the Secretary for Scotland power to make Provisional Orders authorising and regulating the supply of electricity for lighting and other purposes.’
The Chairman intimated that the Commissioners were of opinion that the Order, having been referred to them by the Secretary for Scotland, and passed by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons, it was incumbent on them to consider the clause and the agreement upon their merits.
Evidence having been led, the Commissioners expressed the opinion that the agreement scheduled to the Order was for the advantage of the districts concerned, and that the clause confirming the same should be allowed. They accordingly held the preamble proved, subject to the addition to the clause in question of words limiting the grounds upon which the promoters might oppose the annexation of any area to the city of Glasgow.

Judges:

The Earl of Cathcart, Lord Saye and Sele, Sir John Dewar, Bart., M.P. (Chairman), and Sir William Robertson

Citations:

[1912] UKHL 1053 – 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Utilities

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619240

Peak Gen Top Co Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority and Another: Admn 22 Jun 2018

Application for judicial review by eight companies who carry on business generating and supplying electricity as what are known as ‘small embedded generators’.

Judges:

Lavender J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1583 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Utilities

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618999

Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority: HL 22 Jan 1998

A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that diesel flowed into the drum until it overflowed.
Held: Whether a defendant caused an escape into a river was not defeated by an additional intervening cause. The question was, had an act been done and did it contribute forseeably to the escape. Acts of third parties and natural events are not defences to the strict criminal liability imposed by section 85(1) of the Water Resources Act 1991 for polluting controlled waters unless they are really exceptional events. The court discouraged too mechanical an approach to causation: ‘The first point to emphasise is that common sense answers to questions of causation will differ according to the purpose for which the question is asked. Questions of causation often arise for the purpose of attributing responsibility to someone, for example, so as to blame him for something which has happened or to make him guilty of an offence or liable in damages. In such cases, the answer will depend upon the rule by which the responsibility is being attributed.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Gazette 26-Feb-1998, Times 09-Feb-1998, Gazette 25-Mar-1998, [1998] 2 WLR 350, [1998] UKHL 5, [1999] 2 AC 22, [1998] 1 All ER 481

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Water Resources Act 1991 85(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromEmpress Car Company (Abertillery) Limited v National Rivers Authority (Now, Environment Agency) Admn 11-Dec-1996
. .
CitedGaloo Ltd and Others v Bright Grahame Murray CA 21-Dec-1993
It is for the Court to decide whether the breach of duty was the cause of a loss or simply the occasion for it by the application of common sense. A breach of contract, to found recovery, must be shown to have been ‘an ‘effective’ or ‘dominant’ . .
CitedAlphacell Ltd v Woodward HL 3-May-1972
The defendant operated a paper manufacturing plant which involved maintaining tanks of polluting liquid near the river, so that pollution would occur if they overflowed. There were pumps which ought normally to have drawn off the liquid and . .
DisapprovedPrice v Cromack 1975
The defendant maintained two lagoons on his land into which, pursuant to an agreement, the owners of adjoining land discharged effluent. The lagoons developed leaks which allowed the effluent to escape into the river.
Held: The escape had not . .
DisapprovedWychavon District Council v National Rivers Authority QBD 16-Sep-1992
The council maintained the sewage system in its district as agent for the statutory authority, the Severn Trent Water Authority. It operated, maintained and repaired the sewers. As sewage authority, it received raw sewage into its sewers. On the . .
CitedNational Rivers Authority v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd HL 21-Nov-1994
The defendant sewerage undertaker received sewage, treated it in filter beds and discharged the treated liquid into the river. One night someone unlawfully discharged a solvent called iso-octanol into the sewer. It passed through the sewage works . .
CitedWeld-Blundell v Stephens HL 1920
The plaintiff had been successfully sued for a libel contained in a document which he had supplied to his accountant.
Held: He could not recover the damages he had had to pay to the defamed party from his accountant, who had negligently left . .
CitedStansbiev Troman CA 1948
A decorator working alone in a house went out to buy wallpaper and left the front door unlocked. He was held liable for the loss caused by a thief who entered while he was away. For the purpose of attributing liability to the thief (e.g. in a . .
Wrongly decidedImpress (Worcester) Ltd v Rees QBD 1971
The appellants kept a fuel oil storage tank with an unlocked valve in their yard near the river. An unauthorised person entered during the night and opened the valve. The justices convicted.
Held: The appeal was allowed. ‘On general principles . .
CitedMediterranean Freight Services Ltd v BP Oil International Ltd (The Fiona) CA 27-Jul-1994
A ship owner is to have made his ship seaworthy in order to claim an indemnity for dangerous fuel set alight by a third party. He was not entitled to claim where the failure to keep the ship seaworthy was his own.
Hirst LJ said: ‘The inclusion . .
CitedNational Rivers Authority v Wright Engineering Co Ltd QBD 19-Nov-1993
Escape following vandalism was not ’caused’ by the company. It was not foreseeable. Although there had been past incidents of vandalism at the defendant’s premises, ‘the vandalism involved was not reasonably foreseeable because it was out of all . .
CitedWelsh Water Authority v Williams Motors (Cwmdu) Ltd QBD 1-Dec-1988
Oil was supplied to Williams Motors by Autobrec Oils and there was spillage from an offset fuel pipe out of sight of the delivery driver. Some of the spilt oil got into the storm drainage, and thus into a canal. Williams Motors were charged under . .
CitedRegina v CPC (UK) Ltd, CPC (UK) Ltd v National Rivers Authority CACD 4-Aug-1994
The defendant operated a factory, using cleaning liquid carried through PVC piping. The piping leaked because it had been badly installed by the reputable subcontractors employed by the previous owners of the factory.
Held: Although the . .

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
CitedFairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others HL 20-Jun-2002
The claimants suffered mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work. Their employers pointed to several employments which might have given rise to the condition, saying it could not be clear which particular employment gave rise to the . .
CitedRegina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .
CitedExpress Ltd v The Environment Agency QBD 15-Jul-2004
The dairy appealed its conviction for allowing cream to enter a brook from the land of its customer.
Held: Polluting matter did not need to be itself noxious or poisonous, it was enough that it stained or tinted the water as did cream. Though . .
CitedChester v Afshar HL 14-Oct-2004
The claimant suffered back pain for which she required neurosurgery. The operation was associated with a 1-2% risk of the cauda equina syndrome, of which she was not warned. She went ahead with the surgery, and suffered that complication. The . .
AppliedRegina v Finlay CACD 8-Dec-2003
The defendant appealed from his conviction for manslaughter. He had been found to have prepared heroin by loading it into a syringe and passing it to a friend.
Held: Even if ‘the appellant had not himself wielded the syringe, he would have . .
CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedRegina v Kennedy HL 17-Oct-2007
The defendant had been convicted of manslaughter. He had supplied a class A drug to a friend who then died taking it. The House was asked ‘When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the . .
CitedHurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
CitedRegina v RL and JF CACD 28-Aug-2008
Club, not members, prosecutable for breach
The Environment Agency appealed against dismissal of charges against the defendants who were officers in an unincorporated members’ golf club on whose land there had been pollution. The judge had ruled that the unincorporated association could have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Utilities

Leading Case

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.135165

Consorzio Italian Management E Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA: ECJ 19 Apr 2018

Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors – Directive 2004/17/EC – Obligation to review prices after the award of the contract – No such obligation in Directive 2004/17/EC or arising from the general principles underlying Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2004/17/EC – Cleaning and maintenance services linked to railway transport operations – Article 3(3) TEU – Articles 26, 57, 58 and 101 TFEU – Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred – Inadmissibility – Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Provision of national law not implementing EU law – Lack of jurisdiction

Citations:

CLI:EU:C:2018:264, [2018] EUECJ C-152/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities, Contract

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609052

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 from refusing a connection that would have potentially deleterious environmental consequences.

Judges:

Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1936 (QB)

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBeech 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 . .
CitedSmeaton 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 FromBarratt 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 InstanceBarratt 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

Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers (Scotland): SC 16 Dec 2015

The appellant challenged the grant of permission to the erection of wind turbines within sight of its golf course.
Held: The appeal failed. The challenge under section 36 was supported neither by the language or structure of the 1989 Act, and ‘ The flexibility conferred on the Scottish Ministers in each of those conditions to modify the way in which the windfarm is constructed and operated does not enable them to alter the nature of the approved development.’
‘I see dangers in an approach which may lead to the impression that there is a special set of rules applying to planning conditions, as compared to other legal documents, or that the process is one of great complexity.’
and ‘Any such document of course must be interpreted in its particular legal and factual context. One aspect of that context is that a planning permission is a public document which may be relied on by parties unrelated to those originally involved . . It must also be borne in mind that planning conditions may be used to support criminal proceedings. Those are good reasons for a relatively cautious approach, for example in the well established rules limiting the categories of documents which may be used in interpreting a planning permission . . But such considerations arise from the legal framework within which planning permissions are granted. They do not require the adoption of a completely different approach to their interpretation.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2015] UKSC 74, [2015] WLR(D) 524, 2016 SLT 9, [2016] 1 WLR 85, 2016 SC (UKSC) 25, 2016 GWD 1-26, 2016 SCLR 67, UKSC 2015/0160

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Electricity Act 1989 36

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

At Outer HouseTrump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 17-Oct-2013
Outer House – Court of Session – This petition for judicial review challenged the decisions of the Scottish Ministers (a) not to hold a public inquiry, and (b) to grant consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and . .
At Outer House (2)Trump International Gold Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 11-Feb-2014
Outer House . .
At Inner HouseTrump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers SCS 5-Jun-2015
The petitioner golf course objected to the consent to an offshore windfarm. . .
CitedFawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council HL 1960
A grant of planning permission was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition: ‘The occupation of the houses shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by section 119(1) of . .
CitedMannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
CitedRegina v Ashford Borough Council ex parte Shepway District Council Admn 7-May-1998
The court set out the general rule in construing an outline planning permission which was clear, unambiguous and valid on its face. Regard could be had only to the planning permission itself and any conditions and the express reasons for them. . .
CitedCarter Commercial Developments Ltd (In Administration) v Secretary of State For Transport, Local Government And The Regions, Mendip District Council CA 4-Dec-2002
Appeal from a decision that effectively was a decision on the proper construction of a condition in a planning permission. . .
CitedSevenoaks District Council, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 22-Mar-2004
There is no room for implying into condition 14 a further obligation that the developer must construct the development in accordance with the design statement. . .
CitedKirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc HL 21-Oct-2004
The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’).
Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance . .
CitedMarley v Rawlings and Another (2) SC 18-Sep-2014
The parties had disputed the validity of a will, and the successful wife of the deceased argued that her costs should be paid by those challenging the will rather than from the estate.
Held: The solicitors (or their insurers) who had made the . .
Too AbsoluteTrustees of the Walton-on-Thames Charities v Walton and Weybridge Urban District Council CA 1970
There is no room for an implied condition in a planning permission. Widgery LJ said: ‘I have never heard of an implied condition in a planning permission and I believe no such creature exists. Planning permission enures for the benefit of the land. . .
CitedThe Midcounties Co-Operative Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Forest of Dean District Council, Santon Group Developments Ltd Admn 20-Jul-2007
. .
CitedAttorney General of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd and Another PC 18-Mar-2009
(Belize) A company had been formed to manage telecommunications in Belize. The parties disputed the interpretation of its articles. Shares had been sold, but the company was structured so as to leave a degree of control with the government. It was . .
CitedAttorney General of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd and Another PC 18-Mar-2009
(Belize) A company had been formed to manage telecommunications in Belize. The parties disputed the interpretation of its articles. Shares had been sold, but the company was structured so as to leave a degree of control with the government. It was . .
CitedHubert v Carmarthenshire County Council Admn 5-Aug-2015
Applications for judicial review which challenge the decisions of Carmarthenshire County Council to grant planning permission to the interested party for a single wind turbine. . .
CitedMarks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
CitedHulme v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 26-May-2011
Permission had been granted for a windfarm, subject to a complex group of conditions, designed to mitigate noise, including (as it was described) ‘blade swish’. Condition 20 required the operator, in the event of a complaint from a local resident, . .
CitedTelford and Wrekin Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 29-Jan-2013
Permission had been granted for use of a building as a garden centre subject to a condition in these terms: ‘prior to the garden centre hereby approved opening, details of the proposed types of products to be sold should be submitted to and agreed . .
CitedCrisp from the Fens Ltd v Rutland County Council CA 1950
A permission was granted for the change of use of a building to use for making potato crisps subject to a condition confining its use to that of ‘the manufacture of potato crisps or any use within class III of [the Use Classes Order]’, in order ‘to . .
CitedCarter Commercial Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for The Environment Admn 27-May-2002
Planning conditions should be interpreted benevolently and not narrowly or strictly. . .

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others SC 3-Jul-2019
The second respondent sought a certificate from the Council determining that the lawful use of its store extended to sales of unlimited categories of goods including food. A certificate to that effect was refused by the Council, but granted by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Utilities

Leading Case

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.556980

Societe des usines a tubes de la Sarre v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community: ECJ 10 Dec 1957

Under the fourth paragraph of article 54 of the treaty the delivery of an opinion on investment programmes is subject to certain requirements. Among the conditions laid down by the treaty, some are merely formal requirements; however, the statement of reasons is an essential, indeed constituent, part of the opinion. The absence of a statement of reasons means that the opinion is legally non-existent. (Treaty, articles 5, 15 and fourth paragraph of article 54)
Reference to the general rules previously laid down and a declaration that they apply to the case in question constitutes an adequate statement of reasons for the opinion. (Treaty, articles 5, 15 and fourth paragraph of article 54)
Article 4 of decision no 27/55 of the high authority of 20 july 1955 provides a time – limit only for the submission of investment proposals. The principles of sound administration require the opinion of the high authority to be delivered within a reasonable time, namely, before the expiry of the three months laid down in article 4 of decision no 27/55. A time-limit expressly recognized by a public authority may not be disregarded. (Treaty, third and fourth paragraphs of article 54; decision no 27/55 of the high authority, article 4)
Delivery of an opinion out of time does not affect the nature of the act. (Treaty, fourth paragraph of article 54)
Only acts of the high authority which, regardless of their form, constitute decisions or recommendations within the meaning of article 14 of the treaty may be the subject of an application for annulment. An opinion constitutes a disguised decision when it lays down a rule capable of being applied, namely, when the high authority determines unequivocally the position which it decides to adopt if certain conditions are fulfilled.
An opinion cannot involve the person to whom it is addressed in any legal obligation; it is a measure by means of which the high authority exercises its function of giving guidance and constitutes advice given to undertakings. An opinion does not affect the freedom of decision and the responsibility of undertakings any more than those of the high authority.

Citations:

C-1/57

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131563

Regina v Secretary of State Environment, ex parte Friends of the Earth Ltd and Another: QBD 4 Apr 1994

The Secretary of State may accept undertakings from water companies to provide a wholesome water supply, rather than requiring a court to order them to achieve the same thing.

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-1994, Independent 12-Apr-1994

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991 68(1)(a)

Environment, European, Utilities

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.87695

Regina v Anglian Water Servies, ex Parte Three Valleys Water Plc: QBD 20 Jan 2000

The respondent was successor to the owners of a reservoir, and the applicants sought to increase the amount of water they could draw daily. It was agreed that the respondent was not a statutory water undertaker, and the extent of the applicants right of supply was governed by the Act establishing the right to draw water. Still, the applicants were not entitled to the full amount of water supply they sought.

Citations:

Gazette 20-Jan-2000

Land, Environment, Utilities

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85113

Norweb Plc v Dixon: QBD 24 Feb 1995

Electric supply was not made under a contract properly so called, and no offence was committed of harassment for payment. If there is a statutory obligation to enter into a form of agreement the terms of which are laid down, at any rate in their most important respects, there is no contract

Citations:

Times 24-Feb-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 636

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1970 40(1)

Cited by:

CitedRowlands v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 26-Mar-1999
The defendant appealed a finding of the EAT that the claimant had standing to claim discrimination under the Act in the way her application to be a foster mother had been treated.
Held: After the EAT decision in W v Essex, it was clear that . .
CitedW 1-6 v Essex County Council and Another CA 2-Apr-1998
A Local Authority had a duty of care to a fostering family when allocating children. A child was known to have a history of sexual abuse and was fostered with a family with other children, and no warning had been given.
Foster parents sued the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Contract, Utilities

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84362

H J Banks and Co Ltd and Others v British Coal Corporation: QBD 10 Aug 1994

No cause of action could be pursued where the European Commission only can decide liability and no decision had yet been made. An action would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction rather than be stayed until the decision was made.

Judges:

Mance J

Citations:

Times 10-Aug-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ECJH J Banks and Co Ltd v British Coal Corporation ECJ 13-Apr-1994
The European Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over ECSC treaty disputes. The duty of sincere cooperation imposed the obligation on the national court to mitigate as far as possible in the interests of the Community the risk of a conflicting . .

Cited by:

See AlsoCoal Authority v H J Banks and Company Ltd; H J Banks and Company Ltd v The Coal Authority and Anoher ComC 20-Dec-1996
ComC Summary judgment under RSC Order 14 – claim for royalties – previous decision of the European Commission – claim for damages for breach of article 4 European Coal and Steel Treaty. The defence to the Coal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Utilities, European

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81098

Saras Energia v State Administration: ECJ 12 Apr 2018

Energy – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2012/27 / EU – Promotion of energy efficiency – Energy efficiency obligations mechanism – Other public policy measures – National Energy Efficiency Fund – Contribution obligation – Distributors of Energy and / or Retail Energy Sales Companies Required – Motivation

Citations:

C-561/16, [2018] EUECJ C-561/16 – O, [2018] EUECJ C-561/16

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Utilities

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608647

Turbogas Produtora Energetica SA v Autoridade Tributaria e Aduaneira: ECJ 7 Mar 2018

Opinion – Energy – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Directive 2003/96/EC – Article 14(1)(a) – Exemption of energy products and electricity used to produce electricity – Third subparagraph of Article 21(5) – Entity producing electricity for its own use – Exemption for small producers of electricity

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:169, [2018] EUECJ C-90/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities, Taxes – Other

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606032

Mynnydd Y Gwynt Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy: CA 22 Feb 2018

Appeal arising from a challenge to the refusal of planning consent for the construction of an onshore wind farm.

Judges:

Lewison, Floyd, Peter Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 231, [2018] WLR(D) 117

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Utilities

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605628

Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd: PC 28 Feb 2002

(New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals.
Held: Dismissing the company’s appeal, the water supplier had a general duty to supply water to accepted standards. The water company had done this. The claimant had failed to show that it had brought its particular needs to the attention of the water company, and a claim in contract failed. The Ashington Piggeries case did not apply because in this case there was one supply of one product. Negligence could not be established without accepting a higher duty to some consumers. No such duty was established. The claims in nuisance, of having allowed the escape of materials brought onto their land, failed because there was no forseeability of this damage.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith

Citations:

Times 05-Mar-2002, [2002] 3 NZLR 308, [2002] BCL 310, Appeal No 57 of 2000, [2002] UKPC 9

Links:

PC, (1) G.J. Hamilton and ‘ target=’_n’>PC, Bailii, PC

Statutes:

Sale of Goods Act 1893 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedChristopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd HL 1972
Mink farmers had asked a compounder of animal foods to make up mink food to a supplied formula.
Held: There was reliance as to the suitability of the ingredients only.
Lord Diplock said: ‘Unless the Sale of Goods Act 1893 is to be allowed . .
CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Agriculture, Contract, Negligence, Nuisance, Commonwealth

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.167739

Southern Gas Networks Plc v Thames Water Utilities Ltd: CA 25 Jan 2018

‘Where supply of gas is interrupted, a customer is generally entitled to statutory compensation payments from his gas distributor. This appeal concerns the question of who should ultimately bear the cost of those payments where the interruption to the gas supply was caused by another services undertaker, in this case a water company which had negligently allowed water to escape from its pipes and enter nearby gas pipes. Is it the gas undertaker, or the water undertaker?’

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 33

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Utilities, Consumer

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604153

Polkomtel sp Zoo v Prezes Urzedu Komunikacji Elektronicznej: ECJ 20 Dec 2017

Approximation of Laws – Telecommunications – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services – Directive 2002/21/EC – Articles 8 and 16 – Directive 2002/19/EC – Articles 8 and 13 – Operator designated as having significant market power – Price control – Obligations imposed by national regulatory authorities – Obligation to ensure cost orientation of prices – Prices set below the costs incurred by the operator concerned for the provision of voice call termination services on mobile networks – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 16 – Freedom to conduct a business – Proportionality

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:989, [2017] EUECJ C-277/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.602104

Eni and Others v Premier ministre: ECJ 20 Dec 2017

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Energy – Gas industry – Security of gas supply – Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 – Obligation of natural gas undertakings to take measures to safeguard the supply of gas to protected customers – Point 1 of the second paragraph of Article 2 – Definition of ‘protected customers’ – Article 8(2) – Additional obligation – Article 8(5) – Possibility for natural gas undertakings of fulfilling their obligation at regional level or at Union level – National legislation imposing on gas suppliers an additional gas storage obligation, the scope of which includes customers who are not protected customers within the meaning of Regulation No 994/2010 – Obligation to be fulfilled, as regards 80% of the gas stored, on the territory of the Member State concerned

Citations:

C-226/16, [2017] EUECJ C-226/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.602083

Stevens (T/A KCS Asset Management) v Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council: Admn 5 Jun 2015

The decision under challenge is a planning permission granted on 7 November 2014 by the defendant for a photovoltaic solar park at Hafod Y Dafal Farm, Aberbeeg, Abertillery.

Judges:

Patterson DBE J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1606 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Utilities

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.547561

Meadows and Others v The Attorney General and Another: PC 19 Oct 2017

(From the Court of Appeal of Jamaica) This appeal raises the question whether, under section 3 of the Electric Lighting Act 1890, the relevant Minister had power in 2001 to grant to the second respondent (‘JPS’) an exclusive licence for the supply of electricity for 20 years for the whole of the island of Jamaica. The appellants represent certain local interests concerned to secure cheaper electricity on the island. Their principal objection is that the grant of such a licence is contrary to the policy of the 1890 Act, by creating a monopoly rather than promoting competition.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath

Citations:

[2017] UKPC 29

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Commercial, Utilities

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598624

PGNiG Supply and Trading v Commission: ECFI 21 Jul 2017

(Order) Reference – Internal market for natural gas – Directive 2009/73 / EC – Request by the Bundesnetzagentur to amend the conditions for derogation from the Union rules for the operation of the OPAL pipeline – Commission decision amending the conditions of license derogation from Union rules – Application for suspension of operation – Failure of urgency

Citations:

ECLI: EU: T: 2017: 544, T-849/16, [2017] EUECJ T-849/16 – CO

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.591338

Poland v Commission T-883/16 – CO: ECFI 21 Jul 2017

(Order) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Internal market for natural gas – Directive 2009/73 / EC – Application by the Bundesnetzagentur to amend the conditions for derogation from the Union rules for the operation of the OPAL gas pipeline – Commission Decision amending the conditions Derogation from the rules of the Union – Application for suspension of operation – Lack of urgency

Citations:

ECLI: EU: T: 2017: 542, [2017] EUECJ T-883/16 – CO

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591340

Commission v Schneider Electric: ECJ 16 Jul 2009

ECJ Grand Chamber – Appeal Concentrations Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 Commission decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market Annulment Non contractual liability of the Community on account of the illegality found Conditions

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-440/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionCommission v Schneider Electric ECJ 3-Feb-2009
(Competition) Appeal Operations in respect of undertakings Market in the distribution of electricity – Damage resulting from the Commission’s conduct in assessing the concentration Conditions for the non-contractual liability of the Community . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.588171

Gert Folk C-529/15: ECJ 1 Jun 2017

ECJ (Environmental Liability – Temporal Scope of Application – Operation of A Hydroelectric Power Plant : Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environmental liability – Directive 2004/35/EC – Article 17 – Temporal scope of application – Operation of a hydroelectric power plant put into operation before the period for transposing that directive had expired- Article 2(1)(b) – Concept of ‘environmental damage’ – National law excluding all damage covered by an authorisation – Article 12(1) – Access to justice in environmental matters – Locus standi – Directive 2000/60/EC – Article 4(7) – Direct effect

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:419, [2017] EUECJ C-529/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities, Environment

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588269

Eon Biofor Sverige AB v Statens energimyndighe: ECJ 22 Jun 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Promotion of energy from renewable sources – Biofuels used for transport – Directive 2009/28/EC – Article 18(1) – ‘Mass balance’ system to ensure that biogas meets the prescribed sustainability criteria – Validity – Articles 34 and 114 TFEU – National legislation requiring mass balance to be carried out in a clearly demarcated area – The competent national authority admitting that this condition may be met when lasting biogas is transported by means of the national gas network – Injunction of that authority excluding that the same condition may be met in the case of imports from Other Member States of sustainable biogas via interconnected national gas networks – Free movement of goods

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:490, [2017] EUECJ C-549/15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2009/28/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities, Environment

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588264

DEI v Commission: ECJ 31 May 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – State aid – Classification decision – Refusal by the European Commission to continue the examination of the applicant’s complaint – No aid at the end of the preliminary examination stage – Decision which is purely confirmatory – Conditions of legality Of the withdrawal of a classification decision

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:409, C-228/16, [2017] EUECJ C-228/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Utilities

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584304

UK Power Networks (Operations) Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority and Others: Admn 23 May 2017

A construction company applied for a licence to connect a proposed supermarket site to the electricity network. It now challenged a requirement to pay the connection costs before work commenced but without allowance for interest on the early payments.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1175 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Electricity Act 1989 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Utilities

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584237