Haley v London Electricity Board: HL 28 Jul 1964

Electricity undertakers owed a duty of care to blind persons as a class when they excavated a trench along a pavement in a London suburb because blind people foreseeably walk along pavements.

Reid, Morton of Henryton, Evershed, Hodson, Guest LL
[1964] 3 All ER 185, [1964] 3 WLR 479, [1965] AC 778, [1964] UKHL 3
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Negligence, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.181272

Lambeth London Borough Council v Thomas: CA 31 Mar 1997

There had been an agreement between Lambeth and Thames Water when Thames Water was still a public water authority and when Lambeth collected water rates properly so called from its tenants on behalf of the water authority. No evidence of it in writing remained. but it was found by the county court judge on the basis of the evidence in the case, and its essential outlines were found as facts. The tenant there, Mrs Thomas, was also a secure tenant who had failed to pay her water charges, which under her tenancy agreement were payable weekly together with her rent. A possession order was sought for some pounds 600 of water charges (and some pounds 100 of general rates). Her housing benefit had otherwise discharged all rent due from her. The judge regarded the water charges as rent, but refused to order possession on the basis that, although they were due, it would not be reasonable, at least normally, to use a possession order as a sanction to enforce payment of water charges for water supplied by a privatised third party.
Held: Water rates paid on by council ‘touched and concerned’ land and were recoverable as rent.
Mance J said: ‘The position is thus that the Council had at all material times the power to enter into an agreement for the collection and recovery by the Council on behalf of the water authority or company of any water charges payable or fixed for the supply of water by the water authority or company, at least in the Council’s area. The Judge, after hearing evidence, was satisfied that the Council had entered into such an agreement, currently with Thames Water Utilities Limited, whereby the Council ‘undertook to collect money from each tenant’. He described the origins of the agreement as ‘lost in the mists of time’, but set out certain of its characteristics which are worth mention. The Council, consistently with the statutory language, claims and seeks to collect from its tenants the amounts fixed by the water company in respect of their particular properties. The discounted lump sum is arrived at by negotiation and is based on the total water charges for all relevant Council properties, less a discount to take account of unoccupied premises and the costs of collection. Presumably, although this is not stated, the discount also takes account of the risks of non-recovery, since it appears that the Council undertakes to pay the water company the discounted lump sum, irrespective of what it recovers from its tenants. We were told that the discounting means in practice, and is designed to mean, that the Council achieves for the benefit of its housing revenue account a surplus through collecting on behalf of Thames Water Utilities Limited more by way of water charges than the amount for which the Council actually has to account to that company. It is always open to an agent to contract on such a basis, and I see no objection in the present statutory context to the arrangement made between the Council and the water company. Any surplus accruing to the Council’s housing account (which has been ‘ring-fenced’ under the relevant legislation throughout the 1990s) ensures [sc ensures] to the benefit of all its tenants, since it enables the Council to keep rents down . . The effect of the agreement between the Council as landlord and Mrs Thomas as tenant has been at all times such as to entitle the Council to claim from her the water rate or charges which the Council has arranged with the water authority or company to collect’ and
‘In the present case, the water charges are due from the tenant as occupier of the demised premises and a user of water there. Although the water supplies are made by the water company to Mrs Thomas and the statutory framework envisages the collection of the water charges by the Council on behalf of the water authority or company, the practical effect of the agreements made (a) between the Council and the water company and (b) the Council and Mrs Thomas is that Mrs Thomas answers for the water charges to the Council while the Council takes care of them vis-s-vis the water company. It was explained to us that this system not only provides a potential surplus in the Council’s housing account, to the benefit of all tenants including Mrs Thomas, it also corresponds with the Council’s policy that tenants who are less well off and, in some cases perhaps, less capable of looking after their own affairs should be protected from the risk of having their basic utilities cut off, due to failure to meet relevant charges. Some housing associations have, we were told, made similar arrangements, and the Council itself has some similar arrangements in relation to the supply of electricity and gas. There may be council tenants who do not approve or appreciate the policy or the making of such arrangements for their benefit, but the legislation clearly empowers it and the Council is clearly entitled to adopt such a policy. Where it has done so and has implemented it in the way described for the benefit of itself and its tenants, the resulting obligation on a tenant to pay to the Council the water charges must in my view be regarded as touching and concerning the demised house, and as an ‘obligation of the tenancy’, even if it is not anyway rent.’

Kennedy LJ, Mance J
Times 31-Mar-1997, (1997) 30 HLR 89
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRochdale Borough Council v Dixon CA 20-Oct-2011
The defendant tenant had disputed payment of water service charges and stopped paying them. The Council obtained a possession order which was suspended on payment or arrears by the defendant at andpound;5.00. The tenant said that when varying the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Local Government, Utilities

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.82907

SCM (United Kingdom) Ltd v W J Whittall and Son Ltd: CA 1970

The defendants’ workmen damaged an electric cable belonging to the electricity board, cutting off several factories, including the plaintiff’s. The defendant sought to have the claim struck out.
Held: The part of the claim arising from physical damage was not struck out, but that for economic loss was. Economic loss ought not to be put on one pair of shoulders, but spread among all the sufferers.
Lord Denning said: ‘I must not be taken, however, as saying that economic loss is always too remote. There are some exceptional cases when it is the immediate consequence of the negligence and is recoverable accordingly. Such is the case when a banker negligently gives a good reference on which a man extends credit, and loses the money. The plaintiff suffers economic loss only, but it is the immediate – almost, I might say, the intended – consequence of the negligent reference and is recoverable accordingly: see Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd. v. Heller and Partners Ltd. [1964] A.C. 465. Another is when the defendant by his negligence damages a lorry which is carrying the plaintiff’s goods. The goods themselves are not damaged, but the lorry is so badly damaged that the goods have to be unloaded and carried forward in some other vehicle. The goods owner suffers economic loss only, namely, the cost of unloading and carriage, but he can recover it from the defendant because it is immediate and not too remote. It is analogous to physical damage: because the goods themselves had to be unloaded. Such was the illustration given by Lord Roche in Morrison Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Greystoke Castle (Cargo Owners) [1947] A.C. 265. Likewise, when the cargo owners have to pay a general average contribution. It is not too remote and is recoverable.
Seeing these exceptional cases you may well ask: How are we to say when economic loss is too remote or not? Where is the line to be drawn? Lawyers are continually asking that question. But the judges are never defeated by it. We may not be able to draw the line with precision, but we can always say on which side of it any particular case falls.’

Lord Denning
[1971] 1 QB 337, [1970] 3 All ER 245, [1970] 3 WLR 694
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council CA 1972
The court considered the liability in negligence of a Council whose inspector had approved a building which later proved defective.
Held: The Council had control of the work and with such control came a responsibility to take care in . .
CitedD Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others QBD 31-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain.
Held: Much of the damage claimed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Utilities

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.186894

Infinis Energy Holdings Ltd v HM Treasury and Another: CA 21 Oct 2016

No breach of EU Legitimate Expectation

The appellant challenged rejection of its request for judicial review of a decision to remove financial support for its creation pf renewable energy.
Held: The appal failed. Althought eth claimant would indeed be severely affected, it had taken no particular decision based upon any representation from te respondent which might have created a proper expectation. There had been no breach of European law principle of law as to forseeability, certainty of legitimate expectation.

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lloyd Jones, Sales LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1030, [2016] WLR(D) 549, [2017] QB 1221, [2016] STI 2777, [2017] STC 414, [2017] 2 CMLR 12, [2017] 2 WLR 194
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromDrax Power Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Hm Treasury and Others Admn 10-Feb-2016
The claimant sought to challenge the removal of the exemption for renewable source electricity from the Climate Change Levy.
Held: Review was refused. The court rejected the Respondents’ submission that EU law has no application to the RSE . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.570364

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte Friends of the Earth and Another: CA 7 Jun 1995

The Secretary of State can accept an undertaking from water companies instead of making an order to satisfy the obligations under the European directives.
Times 08-Jun-1995, Independent 07-Jun-1995
Water Industry Act 1991 68(1)(a)
England and Wales

Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.87792

Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Bromley Magistrates’ Court: Admn 20 Mar 2013

Sewage had escaped from the company’s facilities. They now sought judicial review of their conviction under the 1990 Act, saying there had been no ‘deposit’ of sewage.
Held: The request for review failed: ‘the answer to the question whether the unintended escape of sewage amounted to a ‘deposit’ within s.33(1)(a) of the Act, is not to be found in dictionary definitions. However, when construed in the context both of sub-section (1)(a) and s.33 as a whole, the preponderance of the argument favours and clearly so, the word ‘deposit’ including unintended escapes. The contrary argument, that this construction results in an unsatisfactory overlap with s.34 of the Act, falls to the ground because s.34 is inapplicable in such circumstances. Conscious though I am that s.33 gives rise to a penal provision, I am satisfied that the usual and strong presumption of a mens rea is here displaced.’
Gross LJ, Singh J
[2013] EWHC 472 (Admin)
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a)
Citing:
CitedShanks and Mcewan (Southern Waste Services) Ltd v Environment Agency Admn 14-Oct-1997
Mance J explained the need to construe the statute so as to identify the rule of attribution appropriate to the relevant statutory offence: ‘The rule of attribution appropriate to a particular situation (e.g., the nature and level of conduct or . .
CitedMilton Keynes District Council v Fuller and Another Admn 23-Jun-2011
The magistrates had concluded that the movement of waste, previously tipped by others in the entrance to the Respondents’ field, did not amount to a ‘deposit’, within s.33(1)(a) of the 1990 Act. The Council appealed against dismissal of it . .
CitedRegina (Thames Water Utilities) v The South East London Division, Bromley Magistrates’ Court ECJ 8-Feb-2007
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) – Treatment of waste water Directive 75/442 Directive 91/271 Waste Concept . .
CitedGateway Professional Services (Management) Ltd v Kingston Upon Hull City Council Admn 8-Mar-2004
An employee of the appellant had deposited a number of black bags containing commercial office waste on the land adjoining the appellant’s own premises. The prosecutor said that the deposit of the bags of waste in those circumstances amounted to an . .
CitedScott and Another v Westminster City Council CA 20-Mar-1995
A vendor’s ‘hot chestnut’ stall was an ‘item deposited on highway’ and could be removed by the Council under the 1980 Act. Waite LJ said: ‘The verb ‘to deposit’ is a term of wide connotation, apt to describe any state of affairs in which one object . .
CitedRemet Co Ltd v Newham London Borough Council QBD 1981
The defendants, when loading non-ferrous metal swarf on to lorries standing on the highway, from time to time miscalculated the available space in a lorry being loaded, and some of the swarf accidentally fell on to the road. In respect of three such . .
CitedGammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v A-G of Hong Kong PC 1984
Lord Scarman expressed the purpose of imposing strict liability within criminal law: ‘In their Lordships’ opinion, the law relevant to this appeal may be stated in the following propositions . . : (1) there is a presumption of law that mens rea is . .
CitedSweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 May 2021; Ref: scu.471921

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte British Telecommunications: ECJ 12 Dec 1996

ECJ 1 Approximation of laws – Telecommunications services – Open network provision to leased lines – Directive 92/44 – Scope – `Telecommunications organizations’ defined as bodies holding special or exclusive rights – Concept
(Council Directives 90/387, Arts 1(1) and 2(1), and 92/44, Art. 2(1); Commission Directives 90/388 and 94/46, Art. 2)
2 Approximation of laws – Telecommunications services – Open network provision to leased lines – Directive 92/44 – Bodies holding special or exclusive rights – Identification – Fact of having been the subject of a notification made pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 90/387 – Holding of an operating licence required by national law but granted on a non-discriminatory basis – Enjoyment of special prerogatives granted on a non-discriminatory basis permitting telecommunications networks to be set up – Irrelevant (Council Directives 90/387, Art. 2(1), second subpara., and 92/44)
3 Approximation of laws – Telecommunications services – Open network provision to leased lines – Directive 92/44 – Bodies holding special or exclusive rights – Concept – Undertakings with exclusive responsibility for operating international lines – Undertaking responsible for the exclusive operation of a public telecommunications network covering part of the country – Included (Council Directives 90/387, Art. 2(1) and 92/44)
4 Approximation of laws – Telecommunications services – Open network provision to leased lines – Directive 92/44 – Obligation to provide a minimum set of leased lines imposed by a Member State only on certain telecommunications organizations – Whether permissible – Conditions
(Council Directive 92/44, Art. 7)
5 Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Obligation referred to in Directive 92/44 to provide, irrespective of whether there is an actual demand, a certain number of lines complying with certain technical characteristics – Breach – None
C-302/94, [1996] EUECJ C-302/94
Bailii
European

Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.161462

Regina 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 defendants were unaware of the existence of the defect and ‘could not be criticised for failing to discover it,’ the pollution had nevertheless been caused by their operation of the factory. So the fact that the negligent installation of the pipes had been unforeseeable was no defence. Liability for river pollution is strict. It existed even where the owner had no knowledge of a leak in a pipe put in before he acquired the land. Whether he had caused the pollution remained a question of fact for the jury.
Lloyd LJ
Independent 30-Aug-1994, Times 04-Aug-1994, [1994] Env LR 131
Water Resources Act 1991 85(1) 209
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedEmpress 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.86463

Renfree v Mageean: CA 30 Jun 2011

Appeal against a quashing of a decision of the planning Inspector appointed by the the Secretary of State, allowing the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of the third respondent to grant planning permission for the erection of a 1.3 megawatt wind turbine generator with a hub height of up to 50 metres and a blade tip height of up to 80 metres on land at Pensilva, Liskeard (‘the site’).
Mummery, Rimer, Sullivan LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 863, [2012] Env LR 3
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedChampion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.442737

The Number (UK) And Conduit Enterprises (Industrial Policy): ECJ 17 Feb 2011

ECJ Approximation of laws – Telecommunications – Networks and services – Directive 2002/22/EC – Designation of undertakings to provide universal service – Specific obligations imposed on the designated undertaking – Directory enquiry services and directories.
C-16/10, [2011] EUECJ C-16/10
Bailii
Directive 2002/22/EC
European

Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.430216

Fluxys SA v Regulatory Commission for Electricity and Gas (CREG) (Energy): ECJ 28 Sep 2010

ECJ Energy policy – Internal market in natural gas – Directive 2003/55/EC – Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 – Except for historical contracts – Principle of non-discriminatory ultimate vacuuming to transmission of natural gas’ – Law National establishing two separate schemes, one for forwarding business, the other for transit activities – comparable situations – Relevant criteria justifying differential treatment – Generalization based on the distinction between the routing and transit.
C-241/09, [2010] EUECJ C-241/09, [2010] EUECJ C-241/09
Bailii, Bailii
Directive 2003/55/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005
European

Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.424767

Wasser und Abwasserzweckverband Gotha und Landkreisgemeinden v Eurawasser Aufbereitungs und Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbH: ECJ 10 Sep 2009

ECJ (Freedom To Provide Services) Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors – Public service for the distribution of drinking water and the treatment of sewage – Service concession – Definition – Transfer to the supplier of the risk connected with operating the service in question.
C-206/08, [2009] EUECJ C-206/08
Bailii
European

Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.374763

Commission 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
C-440/07, [2009] EUECJ C-440/07 – O
Bailii
European
Cited by:
OpinionCommission 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 February 2021; Ref: scu.286156

Commission v Greece C-250/07: ECJ 17 Dec 2008

ECJ Law Relating To Undertakings – Opinion – The action was brought by the European Commission against Greece regarding a public procurement contract in relation to a power station on the island of Crete. The Commission argued that the contracting authority, by failing, firstly, to publish a call for tenders and, secondly, to give reasons for the rejection of one of the tenders in a timely manner, had failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors.
[2008] EUECJ C-250/07 – O
Bailii
European
Cited by:
OpinionCommission v Greece C-250/07 ECJ 4-Jun-2009
(Law Relating To Undertakings) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Directive 93/38/EEC Public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors Award of a contract without a prior call for competition Conditions . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.279129

Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Bromley Magistrates Court: Admn 28 Jul 2008

Whether escapes of waste water from a public sewerage system are ‘Directive waste’ within the scope of the Waste Framework Directive, and thus subject to the enforcement authority of the Environment Agency under section 33 of the 1990 Act.
Carnwath LJ, Bean J
[2008] EWHC 1763 (Admin)
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33

Updated: 10 February 2021; Ref: scu.272301

Pretura Unificata Di Torino v X: ECJ 22 Sep 1988

ECJ The authorization to exceed the maximum permitted concentrations set out in Annex I to Directive 80/778/EEC relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (Article 10 (1)) must be granted only in an urgent situation in which the national authorities are required to cope suddenly with difficulties in the supply of water for human consumption . Such an authorization must be limited to the time normally necessary to restore the quality of the water affected, must not pose any unacceptable risk to human health and may be granted only if the supply of water for human consumption cannot be maintained in any other way.
R-228/87, [1988] EUECJ R-228/87
Bailii
Directive 80/778/EEC

Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.215645

Furness and Others v Thames Water Services Ltd, Environment Agency: Admn 17 Dec 2001

The Environment Agency had granted a licence for the incineration of waste, and this was challenged by the claimants, on the basis of the respondents having failed to comply with the procedures required by the Act and Regulations. The regulations included transitional procedures. They said the Agency had no standing under the Act to issue a licence.
Held: The transitional provisions were not easy, but had been navigated correctly by the Environment Agency. The Agency had considered the report governing these matters which did not in any event have the force of law. The application failed.
Turner J
[2001] EWHC Admin 1058
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990 7 7(4), Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 9, Council Directive 96/61/EC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.167369

Commission v Luxembourg: ECJ 15 Jun 1995

ECJ In order to ensure that directives are fully applied in fact as well as in law, Member States must provide a precise legal framework in the field in question, by adopting rules of law capable of creating a situation which is sufficiently precise, clear and transparent to allow individuals to know their rights and rely on them before the national courts.
Even supposing that the ‘General Conditions for Telecommunications Services’ adopted and published by the public postal and telecommunications undertaking of a Member State have a content which complies with Directive 92/44 on the application of open network provision to leased lines, they cannot be regarded as ensuring an adequate transposition of that directive where it is apparent that that Member State has not adopted within the prescribed period the provisions needed to oblige that undertaking to comply with the requirements of the directive and to put individuals in a position to know the full extent of their rights under the directive and rely on them, if necessary, before the national courts.
C-220/94, [1995] EUECJ C-220/94
Bailii
European

Updated: 05 January 2021; Ref: scu.161404

Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd: ComC 16 Jan 2018

The parties contracted for the marketing of contracts for the marketing of the defendant’s mobile phone contracts. On the claimant entering administration, the defendant exercised a clause in their contract to terminate the contract. The claimant sought payment of sums remaining due under the contracts entered into by consumers, but the defendant counterclaimed saying that the decision to enter administration was a repudiation with associated losses. The claimant now sought summary judgment.
Held: The application was granted.
Andrew Baker J
[2018] EWHC 49 (Comm), [2018] WLR(D) 39
Bailii, WLRD, Judiciary, Judiciary Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMaple Flock Co v Universal Furniture Products (Wembley) Ltd CA 1934
The court considered the effect of a breach in a contract for delivery by instalments.
Held: The chief considerations are first, the ratio quantitatively which the breach bears to the contract as a whole, and secondly, the degree of . .
CitedHong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd CA 20-Dec-1961
The plaintiffs had recently acquired the ship the ‘Hong Kong Fir’ and contracted to charter it to the defendants, but being late in delivering it, the defendants cancelled the charterparty contract. The plaintiffs said the repudiation was wrongful, . .
CitedKey2Law (Surrey) Llp v De’Antiquis CA 20-Dec-2011
. .
CitedTelford Homes (Creekside) Ltd v Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd CA 23-May-2013
. .
CitedMonarch Airlines Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Airport Coordination Ltd CA 22-Nov-2017
. .
CitedBoston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co v Ansell CA 1888
An employer having dismissed an employee (its managing director) later learnt of the employee’s fraud.
Held: The employer was allowed to rely upon that fraud to justify the dismissal. Where an agent is in wrongful repudiation of his contract . .
CitedYeoman Credit Ltd v Waragowski CA 1961
The defendant had paid the initial deposit for and took delivery on hire-purchase terms of a van, but made no monthly hire-purchase instalments. The plaintiff terminated, took possession of the van and sued for hire-purchase arrears and damages. . .
CitedFinancings Ltd v Baldock CA 1963
The hirer took delivery of a vehicle under an HP contract. he plaintiff exercised a contractual right to terminate the hiring and take possession of the vehicle when the defendant failed to pay the first two monthly instalments.
Held: Where an . .
CitedFinancings Ltd v Baldock CA 1963
The hirer took delivery of a vehicle under an HP contract. he plaintiff exercised a contractual right to terminate the hiring and take possession of the vehicle when the defendant failed to pay the first two monthly instalments.
Held: Where an . .
CitedLombard North Central v Butterworth CA 31-Jul-1986
The defendant entered into a hire-purchase contract for a computer, time being stipulated to be ‘of the essence’ in relation to the payment obligations. He defendant defaulted, and the plaintiff took possession of the goods, and and sought payment . .
CitedVitol Sa v Norelf Ltd HL 10-Jul-1996
(The Santa Clara) The seller was to deliver propane by a ship set to leave on a certain date. The market was falling. The buyer, when it was clear that the ship would be unable to leave on the day fixed, sent a telex to say that the contract was . .
CitedBarrett v London Borough of Enfield HL 17-Jun-1999
The claimant had spent his childhood in foster care, and now claimed damages against a local authority for decisions made and not made during that period. The judge’s decision to strike out the claim had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
CitedModern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd v Gilbert Ash (Northern) Ltd HL 1974
The court considered how to construe a clause in a contract which excluded a remedy provided by law. Lord Diplock said: ‘It is, of course, open to parties to a contract . . to exclude by express agreement a remedy for its breach which would . .
CitedAnd So To Bed Ltd v Dixon 2001
The defendants, Mr and Mrs Dixon, were franchisees of an ‘And So To Bed’ shop. The franchise was terminated by the claimant, purportedly under a clause of the franchise agreement which entitled the claimant summarily to terminate the agreement for . .
CitedLatvian Shipping Company and Others v Stocznia Gdanska Sa CA 21-Jun-2002
A payment condition was just that and that a failure to pay entitled the seller to terminate at common law. Rix LJ said: ‘It is established law that, where one party to a contract has repudiated it, the other may validly accept that repudiation by . .
CitedStocznia Gdanska Sa v Latvian Shipping Company and others CA 23-Jul-2002
Application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused. . .
CitedLeofelis Sa and Another v Lonsdale Sports Ltd 7 Ors ChD 8-Mar-2007
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 December 2020; Ref: scu.606402

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.
Times 30-Apr-1999, C-340/96, [1999] EUECJ C-340/96
Bailii
Council Directive 80/778/EEC, Water Industry Act 1991

Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.79307

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.
[1860] EngR 127, (1860) 2 F and F 144, (1860) 175 ER 998
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.284966

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.
[1842] EngR 72, (1842) 3 QB 449, (1842) 114 ER 579
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.307027

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 . .’
(1889) 22 QBD 520
Public Health Act 1875 91
Cited by:

  • Not binding – Hounslow 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, . .
    Times 09-Jun-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2003] EWHC 1197 (Admin), [2003] 3 WLR 1243, [2004] QB 212
  • Cited – Vella 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 . .
    Times 23-Nov-05, [2005] EWHC 2473 (Admin)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2020; Ref: scu.183839

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.
References: [1990] 2 QB 557, [1991] CLY 2662, [1990] 3 WLR 383
Judges: Gatehouse J
Statutes: Nuclear Installations Act 1965 7 8 9 10 11 12
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Transco 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 . .
    (, [2003] UKHL 61, , Times 20-Nov-03, [2004] 1 ALL ER 589, 91 Con LR 28, [2004] 2 AC 1, [2004] Env LR 24, [2004] 1 P and CR DG12, [2003] 3 WLR 1467, [2003] 48 EGCS 127, [2003] NPC 143)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.188045

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.’
References: (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

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.188837

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.
References: Times 10-Aug-1994
Judges: Mance J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • At ECJ – H 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 . .
    (Times 13-May-94, C-128/92, [1994] 5 CMLR 30, , [1994] EUECJ C-128/92, [1994] ECR I-1209)

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.81098

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.
References: Times 04-Apr-1994, Independent 12-Apr-1994
Statutes: Water Industry Act 1991 68(1)(a)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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.
References: Gazette 20-Jan-2000

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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
References: Times 24-Feb-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 636
Statutes: Administration of Justice Act 1970 40(1)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Rowlands 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 . .
    (, [1999] EWCA Civ 1116)
  • Cited – W 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 . .
    (Times 09-Apr-98, Gazette 20-May-98, , [1998] 3 WLR 534, [1998] EWCA Civ 614, [1998] 3 All ER 111)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.84362

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.
References: [1908] UKHL 337
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Robertson, and Lord Collins
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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.
References: [1915] UKHL 863, 53 SLR 863
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Southwark, the Earl of Moray, and Mr Alpheus C. Morton, MP
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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
References: ECLI:EU:C:2018:571, C-238/17, [2018] EUECJ C-238/17 – O
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620041

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.
References: [1912] UKHL 1053 – 1
Links: Bailii
Judges: The Earl of Cathcart, Lord Saye and Sele, Sir John Dewar, Bart., M.P. (Chairman), and Sir William Robertson
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 21 November 2020; 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’.
References: [2018] EWHC 1583 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lavender J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.618999

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
References: CLI:EU:C:2018:264, [2018] EUECJ C-152/17
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.609052

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
References: C-561/16, [2018] EUECJ C-561/16 – O, [2018] EUECJ C-561/16
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 18 November 2020; 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
References: ECLI:EU:C:2018:169, [2018] EUECJ C-90/17 – O
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 17 November 2020; 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.
References: [2018] EWCA Civ 231, [2018] WLR(D) 117
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Lewison, Floyd, Peter Jackson LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 17 November 2020; Ref: scu.605628

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?’
References: [2018] EWCA Civ 33
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; 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
References: ECLI:EU:C:2017:989, [2017] EUECJ C-277/16
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 15 November 2020; 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
References: C-226/16, [2017] EUECJ C-226/16
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 15 November 2020; Ref: scu.602083

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.’
References: [2017] UKPC 29
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath
Jurisdiction: Commonwealth

Last Update: 14 November 2020; Ref: scu.598624

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
References: ECLI: EU: T: 2017: 542, [2017] EUECJ T-883/16 – CO
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 11 November 2020; 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
References: [2009] EUECJ C-440/07
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European
This case cites:

  • Opinion – Commission v Schneider Electric ECJ 3-Feb-2009 (C-440/07, , [2009] EUECJ C-440/07 – O)
    (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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 11 November 2020; Ref: scu.588171

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
References: ECLI:EU:C:2017:490, [2017] EUECJ C-549/15
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 2009/28/EC
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 10 November 2020; Ref: scu.588264

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
References: ECLI:EU:C:2017:419, [2017] EUECJ C-529/15
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 10 November 2020; Ref: scu.588269

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
References: ECLI:EU:C:2017:409, C-228/16, [2017] EUECJ C-228/16
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 09 November 2020; 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.
References: [2017] EWHC 1175 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Ouseley J
Statutes: Electricity Act 1989 20
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 09 November 2020; Ref: scu.584237

DEI v Commission: ECJ 16 Feb 2017

ECJ (Advocate Generals Opinion) Appeal – State aid – Refusal to grant an injunction ordering the suspension of the decision of an arbitration tribunal relating to the electricity tariff which Alouminion SA must pay to DEI – Refusal to follow up DEI’s complaint concerning the alleged State aid granted to Alouminion SA – Reduced electricity tariff
References: ECLI:EU:C:2017:133, [2017] EUECJ C-228/16 – O
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 01 November 2020; Ref: scu.579653

Oldcorn and Another v Southern Water Services Ltd: TCC 23 Jan 2017

The Claimants sought damages against the Defendants on the basis that the flood damage they suffered at the Property was caused by negligence and / or nuisance on the part of the Defendants.
References: [2017] EWHC 62 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Judges: McKenna HHJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 October 2020; Ref: scu.573406

Portovesme v Commission: ECJ 1 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Aid granted by the Italian Republic in favor of Portovesme Srl – Preferential tariff arrangements for electricity – Decision declaring the aid measure incompatible with the internal market
References: ECLI:EU:C:2017:75, [2017] EUECJ C-606/14
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 27 October 2020; Ref: scu.573830

DHL Express (Austria) GmbH v Post-Control-Kommission: ECJ 16 Nov 2016

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 97/67/EC – Article 9 – Postal services in the European Union – Obligation to make a financial contribution to the operational costs of the postal sector’s regulatory authority – Scope
References: ECLI:EU:C:2016:880, [2016] EUECJ C-2/15
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 97/67/EC 9
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 26 October 2020; Ref: scu.571773

Gas and Electricity Markets Authority v GB Energy Supply Ltd: ChD 21 Dec 2016

Application brought by the claimant, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority acting through the officials of OFGEM for a declaration that the defendant company GB Energy Supply Ltd is unable to pay its debts and therefore conditions in the relevant Electricity Supply Licence and Gas Supply Licence, whereby GEMA authorises the defendant to operate as a gas and electricity supplier in the UK, are satisfied. If those conditions are satisfied then under the terms of the relevant licences GEMA can revoke the supply licences and appoint another energy supplier as a Supplier of Last Resort.
References: [2016] EWHC 3341 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Birss J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 26 October 2020; Ref: scu.572752

Ormaetxea Garai and Lorenzo Almendros: ECJ 19 Oct 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic communications networks and services – Directive 2002/21/EC – Article 3 – Impartiality and independence of national regulatory authorities – Institutional reform – Merger of national regulatory authority with other regulatory authorities – Dismissal of the President and a board member of the merged national regulatory authority before the expiry of their terms of office – Ground for dismissal not provided for under national law
References: ECLI:EU:C:2016:780, [2016] EUECJ C-424/15
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 2002/21/EC
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.570375

Dei v Alouminion Tis Ellados and Commission: ECJ 26 Oct 2016

ECJ Judgment – Appeal – State aid – Production of aluminium – Preferential electricity tariff granted by a contract – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market – Termination of the contract – Judicial suspension of the effects of termination of the contract – Decision declaring the aid unlawful – Article 108(3) TFEU – Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ – Distinction
References: ECLI:EU:C:2016:797, [2016] EUECJ C-590/14
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.570581

Dowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 20 Oct 2016

Claim for judicial review of a decision on the part of the defendant to authorise the interested party to enter onto land for the purpose of site investigation prior to the construction of a new nuclear power station known as Sizewell C.
References: [2016] EWHC 2618 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Patterson DBE J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 October 2020; Ref: scu.570260

Prezes Urzedu Komunikacji Elektronicznej And Petrotel: ECJ 13 Oct 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic communications networks and services – Directive 2002/21/EC – Article 4(1) – Right of appeal against a decision taken by a national regulatory authority – Effective appeal mechanism – Decision of a national regulatory authority to continue to apply pending the outcome of the appeal – Temporal effects of a decision of a national court annulling a decision of a national regulatory authority – Possibility of annulling a decision of the national regulatory authority with retroactive effect – Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations
References: ECLI:EU:C:2016:769, [2016] EUECJ C-231/15
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 2002/21/EC 4(1)
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 24 October 2020; Ref: scu.570143

Essent Belgium NV v Vlaams Gewest: ECJ 29 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regional legislation requiring the distribution, through the systems located in the region concerned, of electricity produced from renewable energy sources to be free of charge – Different treatment depending on the origin of the green electricity – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Free movement of goods – Directive 2001/77/EC – Articles 3 and 4 – National support mechanisms for the production of green energy – Directive 2003/54/EC – Articles 3 and 20 – Directive 96/92/EC – Articles 3 and 16 – Internal market in electricity – Access to distribution systems on non-discriminatory tariff conditions – Public service obligations – Lack of proportionality
References: C-492/14, [2016] EUECJ C-492/14
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 24 October 2020; Ref: scu.569632

Southern Gas Networks Plc v Thames Water Utilities Ltd: TCC 4 Jul 2016

The Claimant seeks to recover Failure to Supply Gas (FSG) payments made to some 1683 of the Claimant’s customers, in respect of an incident of water ingress in the Crofton Road area of Orpington from the Defendant’s water main.
References: [2016] EWHC 1669 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Martin Bowdery QC DHCJ
Statutes: New Roads and Street Works Act 1991

Last Update: 23 October 2020; Ref: scu.567839

The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 103: SCS 19 Jul 2016

Opinion
References: [2016] ScotCS CSOH – 103
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Stewart
Statutes: Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 October 2020; Ref: scu.568774

Royal Mail Group Plc v The Postal Services Commission: Admn 25 May 2007

Application, lodged as an appeal, seeking to quash a financial penalty of andpound;1 million imposed by the Respondent upon the appellants for breaches of the licence granted by Postcomm to the appellants. Postcomm is the body constituted under the 2000 Act, which is responsible for granting licences to enable persons to ‘convey a letter from one place to another’, to impose appropriate conditions on any such licence and generally to ‘exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to further the interests of users of postal services, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition between postal operators.’
References: [2007] EWHC 1205 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Collins J
Statutes: Postal Services Act 2000

Last Update: 22 October 2020; Ref: scu.567212

Canal and River Trust v Thames Water Utilities Ltd: ChD 29 Jun 2016

Part 8 claim arising from a long standing dispute between the Claimant, the Canal and River Trust, and the Defendant, Thames Water Utilities Ltd, in relation to the abstraction of water from the River Lee.
References: [2016] EWHC 1547 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Asplin DBE J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 22 October 2020; Ref: scu.566239

Orange Business Belgium v Commission: ECFI 4 Jul 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Public service contracts – Tender procedure – Provision of ‘Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations – new generation (TESTAing)’ – Rejection of a tenderer’s bid – Award of the contract – Transparency – Equal treatment – Non-discrimination – Obligation to state reasons
References: T-349/13, [2016] EUECJ T-349/13
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 22 October 2020; Ref: scu.566479

YARA Brunsbuttel v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe: ECJ 17 Dec 2015

ECJ (Order) Preliminary reference – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Directive 2003/96 / EC – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Article 2, paragraph 4 b) – dual use of energy products – Concept – Product energy used for thermal waste treatment and flue gas
References: ECLI:EU:C:2015:836, [2015] EUECJ C-529/14 – CO
Links: Bailii
Judges: C. Lycourgos, P
Statutes: Directive 2003/96/EC

Last Update: 21 October 2020; Ref: scu.565751

Drax Power Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Hm Treasury and Others: Admn 10 Feb 2016

The claimant sought to challenge the removal of the exemption for renewable source electricity from the Climate Change Levy.
Held: Review was refused. The court rejected the Respondents’ submission that EU law has no application to the RSE Exemption at all and that therefore the claim must fail because at the national level legitimate expectations cannot be raised against a sovereign Parliament. The amendments to para. 19 of Schedule 6 to the FA 2000 are within the scope of EU law. The EU law principle of legal certainty, and its corollary the protection of legitimate expectations, require that the application of rules of law must be foreseeable by those subject to them, and that a breach of the EU law principle of foreseeability would also be a breach of domestic law on account of the European Communities Act 1972.
The Judge rejected the Claimants’ case that the legal test as to whether there had been a breach of the EU law principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations in the present case is reducible to the question whether a prudent and circumspect economic operator could have foreseen the possibility of a without notice withdrawal of the RSE Exemption in all the circumstances.
It was not possible to reconcile the various strands of ECJ jurisprudence and the Claimants could not succeed unless they established to his satisfaction that the Respondents promoted a legitimate expectation of there being no withdrawal of the RSE Exemption without a two year time limit (for which the Judge understood the Claimants to be contending), or equivalent fiscal benefit in lieu.
What was required was an express assurance by the Government that any withdrawal of the RSE Exemption would be coupled with the specific two year lead time, or that that might irresistibly be inferred from what Government had said and done such that the giving of such an assurance might be implied; in other words, the giving of something tantamount to an express assurance.
A prudent and circumspect operator should not have inferred that the RSE Exemption would not be removed without a two-year lead time. The Respondents had not created any legitimate expectation on the part of the Claimants to the effect that the RSE Exemption would not be withdrawn without providing a lead time of two-years, or equivalent value.
References: [2016] EWHC 228 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Jay J
Statutes: European Communities Act 1972
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Infinis Energy Holdings Ltd v HM Treasury and Another CA 21-Oct-2016 (, [2016] EWCA Civ 1030, [2016] WLR(D) 549, , [2017] QB 1221, [2016] STI 2777, [2017] STC 414, [2017] 2 CMLR 12, [2017] 2 WLR 194)
    The appellant challenged rejection of its request for judicial review of a decision to remove financial support for its creation pf renewable energy.
    Held: The appal failed. Althought eth claimant would indeed be severely affected, it had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559744

T-Mobile Czech Republic and Vodafone v Czech Republic: ECJ 6 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) – Costing of universal service obligations – Taking account of the rate of return on equity capital – Direct effect – Scope ratione temporis
References: C-508/14, [2015] EUECJ C-508/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:657
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 2002/22/EC
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 13 October 2020; Ref: scu.553105