Thames Water Utilities Ltd v London Borough Of Bromley [2000] EWHC Admin 301 (4 March 2000)

Thames Water Utilities Ltd v London Borough Of Bromley [2000] EWHC Admin 301 (4 March 2000)

The duty to complete permanent reinstatement under s.70(4) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 is a continuing duty, and failure to comply constitutes a continuing offence. Therefore, prosecution is not barred by the six-month limitation in s.127 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, and the magistrates had jurisdiction to convict.

Citation
[2000] EWHC Admin 301
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Thames Water Utilities; Respondent/prosecutor: Street Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Continuing Offences, Street Works, Statutory Duties, Time Limits for Prosecution, Magistrates' Court Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Public Law Continuing Offences Street Works Statutory Duties Time Limits for Prosecution +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thames Water Utilities

Appellant/defendant

Street Authority

Respondent/prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to complete permanent reinstatement under s.70(4) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 constitutes a continuing offence
  2. 2 Whether prosecution is barred by the six-month limitation in s.127 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The duty to complete permanent reinstatement under s.70(4) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 is a continuing duty, and failure to comply constitutes a continuing offence. Therefore, prosecution is not barred by the six-month limitation in s.127 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, and the magistrates had jurisdiction to convict.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The magistrates' conviction is affirmed.