Stewart v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2025] EWHC 3130 (KB) (27 November 2025)

Stewart v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2025] EWHC 3130 (KB) (27 November 2025)

The appeal was dismissed because the hearing below was fair, with appropriate adjustments made for the claimant's vulnerabilities, and the summary judgment was correctly granted as the claim was speculative, unsupported by contemporaneous or credible evidence, and no real prospect of success was demonstrated.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3130 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Emma-Louise Stewart; Respondent/defendant: Thames Water Utilities Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Refusal of Relief From Sanctions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Relief From Sanctions, Business Interruption Loss, Negligence, Disability and Fair Hearing, Expert Evidence
Civil Procedure Tort Summary Judgment Relief From Sanctions Business Interruption Loss Negligence Disability and Fair Hearing Expert Evidence

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emma-Louise Stewart

Appellant/claimant

Thames Water Utilities Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Refusal of Relief From Sanctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was afforded a fair hearing given her disability and status as a litigant in person
  2. 2 Whether the summary judgment was correctly granted on the basis that the claim had no real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the refusal of relief from sanctions was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the hearing below was fair, with appropriate adjustments made for the claimant's vulnerabilities, and the summary judgment was correctly granted as the claim was speculative, unsupported by contemporaneous or credible evidence, and no real prospect of success was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission to appeal dismissed