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: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Environment Agency v Anglian Water Services Ltd Times, 18 February 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 5
31 Jan 2002
CA
Thorpe, Laws, Morland LLJ
Utilities, Environment
The Agency had sought the connection of an entire village to the public sewer. The Act provided that such an obligation might exist where there was a threat to environment or amenity. The water company sought judicial review of the decision. Held The contention sought by the Agency would give rise to irrational results, including either under or over provision. An obligation on a water undertaker to connect one or more properties in an area to a public sewer did not imply an obligation to connect all properties in that area similarly.
Water Industry Act 1991 101A - Environment Act 1995
[ Bailii ]
Thames Water Utilities Limited v Peter Marcic Times, 14 February 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 65; [2002] QB 929; [2002] 2 All ER 55
7 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Aldous, And, Lord Justice Ward
Utilities, Land, Nuisance, Human Rights, Negligence
The claimant owned land over which sewage and other water had spilled from the appellant's sewage works. His claim having been dismissed under Rylands v Fletcher, and there being no statutory means of obtaining compensation, the judge was asked to say that his human rights had been infringed insofar as his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been infringed. Whilst it would be reasonably possible to prevent flooding of the claimant's property, protecting all similarly threatened properties would cost impractically large sums. Held: The test for nuisance and negligence had become similar until the point where a positive act to prevent harm was required rather than acting in such a way as to avoid causing harm. There is a clear common law duty to do whatever is reasonable to prevent hazards on the land, however they might arise, from causing damage to a neighbour. The appellant provided the system of sewers for profit, and had not demonstrated that it was not reasonably practicable for them to abate the nuisance.
Water Industry Act 1991 94(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd Times, 05 March 2002; [2002] 3 NZLR 308; [2002] BCL 310; Appeal No 57 of 2000; [2002] UKPC 9
28 Feb 2002
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith
Utilities, Agriculture, Contract, Negligence, Nuisance, Commonwealth
(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.
Sale of Goods Act 1893 14
1 Cites
[ PC ] - [ (1) G.J. Hamilton and ' target-'_ext'>PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Digginwell Plant and Construction Ltd [2002] EWHC 1171 (TCC)
24 Jun 2002
PatC
Utilities, Construction
[ Bailii ]
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Digginwell Plant and Construction Ltd [2002] EWHC 1171 (Technology)
24 Jun 2002
TCC
Construction, Utilities
Water Industry Act 1991 109(1)
[ Bailii ]
Winsor v Bloom and Others; In re Railtrack plc (in railway administration) Times, 15 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 955
10 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Robert Walker
Utilities, Administrative, Insolvency
The claimant, the Rail regulator appealed a decision that he had to apply to court for directions under the 1986 Act before allowing other rail operators access to the track after the company had gone into railway administration. Held: Section 17 of the 1993 Act was sufficient to allow the regulator to make such an order without first approaching the court. In exercising the power the regulator had to have regard to the interests of others which would not be reflected in insolvency proceedings, and the importance of that role overrode if necessary the interests in the company.
Railways Act 1993 17 - Insolvency Act 1986 11(3)(d)
[ Bailii ]
Ecogen Developments Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2002] EWCA Civ 1433
30 Jul 2002
CA
Laws, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Planning, Utilities
Renewed application for leave to appeal against rejection of application for plannng pemission to erect a wind farm.
[ Bailii ]
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Hampstead Homes (London) Ltd Times, 15 October 2002; Gazette, 31 October 2002
8 Oct 2002
CA
May, Bodey LLJ
Utilities, Construction
A building was converted to flats. It had previously been connected to the water and sewage supplies, but the water company sought to charge for connecting the new apartments. Held: Whether a charge cold be made was a matter of fact and degree. Both the words 'premises' and 'connection' in the Act required construction, but neither was defined. Premises referred to buildings, but could also include parts of buildings. Charges for connection were to be made for buildings not previously connected, and where additional burdens would be placed on the systems. Conversions fell within this group. In this case 109 flats constituted new premises, and a charge could be made.
Water Industry Act 1991 146(2)(a)
British Waterways Board v London Power Networks Plc, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Times, 21 November 2002; Gazette, 30 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2417 (Ch)
15 Nov 2002
ChD
The Vice-Chancellor
Utilities, Land
The landowner objected to the proposal of the second respondent to grant, in favour of the first respondent, a wayleave to lay cables through tunnels owned by the claimant landowner. Held: The tunnel structure was properly seen as land within the Act, and the way-leaves were properly granted. The argument that the meaning of the word 'land' must be restricted so as to avoid bizarre conclusions did not work. The right granted applied to all the subsections, or to none of them. Wayleaves through structures on or under land did not differ.
Electricity Act 1989 Sch 4 para 6
[ Bailii ]
