Wallis v Bristol Water Plc
'Likely' in Regulation 3(2) of the Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999 means 'a real possibility' that cannot sensibly be ignored, given the nature and gravity of the feared harm to public health. The statutory defence in Regulation 2(4) does not override a notice issued under Schedule 2, Paragraph 15(4)(b). The criminal standard was correctly applied.
- Parties
- Claimant: Michael Wallis; Defendant: Bristol Water PLC
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 10 December 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Interpretation of 'likely' in Criminal Statutes, Water Contamination, Backflow Prevention, Regulatory Compliance
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Wallis
Claimant
Bristol Water PLC
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Meaning of 'likely' in Regulation 3(2) of the Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999
- 2 Applicability of Regulation 2(4) statutory defence after notice under Schedule 2, Paragraph 15(4)(b)
- 3 Correct application of criminal standard of proof
Ratio Decidendi
'Likely' in Regulation 3(2) of the Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999 means 'a real possibility' that cannot sensibly be ignored, given the nature and gravity of the feared harm to public health. The statutory defence in Regulation 2(4) does not override a notice issued under Schedule 2, Paragraph 15(4)(b). The criminal standard was correctly applied.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed
- Court to consider certification of point of law of general public importance
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment