Brendon International Ltd v Water Plus Ltd & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 220 (08 March 2024)

Brendon International Ltd v Water Plus Ltd & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 220 (08 March 2024)

The Judge erred in law by misapplying the legal burden of proof regarding the status of the sewer; the claimant must prove the sewer was not public. The exclusion of Mr. Griffiths' expert evidence was incorrect as he was sufficiently qualified and CPR 35 did not apply. The Judge's findings on limitation and mistake were not disturbed, but the appeal was allowed on the burden of proof and expert evidence grounds.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 220
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Brendon International Limited; Defendant/appellant: Water Plus Limited; Defendant/appellant: United Utilities Water Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Mistake in Payment, Burden of Proof, Limitation Period, Expert Evidence Admissibility, Public Vs Private Sewer Status
Restitution Utilities Law Civil Procedure Mistake in Payment Burden of Proof Limitation Period Expert Evidence Admissibility Public Vs Private Sewer Status

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendon International Limited

Claimant/respondent

Water Plus Limited

Defendant/appellant

United Utilities Water Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sewer was a public sewer vested in United Utilities under Water Industry Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether the legal burden of proof was correctly applied
  3. 3 Admissibility of expert opinion evidence under Civil Evidence Act 1972

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge erred in law by misapplying the legal burden of proof regarding the status of the sewer; the claimant must prove the sewer was not public. The exclusion of Mr. Griffiths' expert evidence was incorrect as he was sufficiently qualified and CPR 35 did not apply. The Judge's findings on limitation and mistake were not disturbed, but the appeal was allowed on the burden of proof and expert evidence grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Case remitted for reconsideration of whether Brendon discharged the legal burden of proof that the sewer was not a public sewer
  • Mr. Griffiths' expert evidence to be admitted and considered