A watercourse for the purpose of the Act was only a limited area of water and could not include a river or an estuary. An authority serving an abatement notice in respect of sewerage discharges, was not under a duty to consult first with the water company, but should do so if it had raised an expectation of consultation.
Citations:
Times 06-May-1999, Gazette 06-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 349
Links:
Statutes:
Environmental Protection Act 1990 80 259
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority v South West Water Limited CA 30-Mar-2000
The term ‘watercourse’ did not include an estuary or a river. The history of such legislation required that restricted interpretation. Accordingly, a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance served by a Health authority on a water undertaker, was . .
Cited by:
Appealed from – Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority v South West Water Limited CA 30-Mar-2000
The term ‘watercourse’ did not include an estuary or a river. The history of such legislation required that restricted interpretation. Accordingly, a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance served by a Health authority on a water undertaker, was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Environment
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139613