swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Utilities - From: 1849 To: 1899
This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Rex v Betts; 1850 - (1850) 16 QB 1022
Dickinson And Another v The Grand Junction Canal Company [1852] EngR 156; (1853) 7 Exch 282; (1852) 155 ER 953
24 Jan 1852
Utilities
[ Commonlii ]
Ellis v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co; Attorney-General v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co (1853) 2 E & B 767; [1853] EngR 221; (1852-1853) 3 De G M & G 304; (1853) 43 ER 119; [1853] EngR 919; (1853) 2 El & Bl 767; (1853) 118 ER 955
1853
Negligence, Utilities
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."
[ Commonlii ] - [ Commonlii ]
Blyth v The Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks [1856] EWHC Exch J65; (1856) 11 Exch 781; 156 ER 1047
6 Feb 1856
Exc
Alderson B
Utilities, Negligence
The plaintiff sought damages, alleging negligence by the defendants in maintaining their water pipes. His house had been flooded when a mains leaked. Held: Alderson B: "Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done. A reasonable man would act with reference to the average circumstances of the temperature in ordinary years."
[ Bailii ]
Glossop v Heston and Isleworth Local Board; 1878 - (1878) 12 ChD 102
Acton Local Board v Batten (1884) 27 ChD 283
1884
ChD
Kay J
Utilities
A dispute arose during the development of Bedford Park, Chiswick. Mr Carr had sold some of his land to the defendant, who became the owner of four houses built on the land and the soil of the street which ran between them. Mr Carr still owned two houses in the same street, which was not yet adopted as a highway. Problems arose over the drainage of the street, and Mr Carr agreed with the plaintiff board that he would build a sewer along the street to one of its pumping stations. The defendant allowed Mr Carr to build part of this new sewer through his land, provided that he then connected the defendant's houses with the sewer. Mr Carr subsequently defaulted on this agreement, and the defendant retaliated by blocking the sewer where it passed through his land. The plaintiff board, as the local authority in whom all the sewers within the district were vested, then sued the defendant for blocking the sewer. Mr Carr supported the plaintiffs in these proceedings, in which the defendant contended that the sewer was not vested in the local authority because it had been constructed by Mr Carr for the improvement and advantage of his property, and therefore for his own profit, thus falling within one of the exceptions in section 13 of the Act. He also contended that the drain was not a sewer within the meaning of section 4 of the Act. Held: The court dismissed the first part of the defence because almost every sewer in every street of every suburb of every town in England might be considered a sewer made for the profit of the person who constructed it. He was satisfied that he should examine the purpose for which this sewer was built, and he found that it was made for the purpose of draining all the houses in the street, and this did not fall within the first exception in section 13(1). On the second part of the defence, the Court found that the sewer had been connected to three of the houses in the street before the defendant blocked it. Since the word "drain" meant any drain of and used for the drainage of one building only, and the word "sewer" had the meaning we have set out in paragraph 7 above, he was satisfied that this drain was a sewer. He said: "I therefore cannot have any doubt as to the meaning of the Act. It was to give the largest possible interpretation to the word `sewer' and most clearly to include a drain like this, actually laid down and intended to be connected with all the houses in an intended street which required to be connected with it. That must be within the meaning of the word `sewer', at any rate, after more than one house had been connected with it."
Public Health Act 1875
1 Citers
Regina v Parlby (1889) 22 QBD 520
1889
Utilities, Nuisance, Magistrates
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 . ."
Public Health Act 1875 91
1 Citers
Ainley v Kirkheaton Local Board (1891) 60 LJ (Ch) 734
1891
Stirling J
Utilities
The exercise of the right of an owner of property to discharge into a public sewer conferred by section 21 of the 1875 Act could not be prevented by the local authority on the ground that the discharge was creating a nuisance. It was for the local authority to ensure that what was discharged into their sewer was freed from all foul matter before it flowed out into any natural watercourse.
Public Health Act 1875 21
1 Citers
Bradford v Mayor of Eastbourne [1896] 2 QB 205
1896
Lord Russell CJ
Land, Local Government, Utilities
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"
Public Health Act 1875 13
1 Citers
Durrant v Branksome Urban District Council [1897] 2 Ch 291
1897
North J
Utilities
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.
Public Health Act 1875 17
1 Citers
Robinson v Workington Corporation; CA 1897 - [1897] 1 QB 619
Conservators of the River Thames v Smeed Dean and Co [1897] 2 QB 334
1897
CA
Chitty LJ, Smith LJ
Land, Utilities
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."
Thames Conservancy Act 1894
1 Citers
Durrant v Branksome Urban District Council [1897] 2 Ch 291
1897
CA
Lindley LJ, Lopes LJ, Chitty LJ
Utilities
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."
Public Health Act 1875 15 16 17 21
1 Cites
1 Citers
Bethnal Green Vestry v London School Board; HL 1898 - [1898] AC 190
Brown v Dunstable Corporation [1899] Ch 378
1899
Cozens-Hardy J
Utilities
Cozens-Hardy J considered the right of a land-owner to make connection to the public sewer, and said the right under section 21 is an "absolute right", adding that: "This absolute right is no doubt subject to any regulations in respect of the mode of making connections and subject to the control of any person appointed to superintend the making of the connections; but no regulations can justify an absolute refusal to allow a connection to be made on any terms".
Public Health Act 1875 21
1 Citers
Jordeson v Sutton, Southcotes and Drypool Gas Co [1899] 2 Ch 217
1899
Nuisance, Utilities
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.
Gas Works Clauses Act 1871 9
Bourke v Davis (1899) 44 Ch D 110
1899
Kay J
Utilities, Land
A public right of navigation over a river is "similar to a right of highway on land not covered by water." Before 1885, public rights of navigation did not exist over tributaries of the Thames where there was no prescriptive user.
1 Citers
