Hall v Environment Agency

Hall v Environment Agency

The statutory compensation scheme under the Water Resources Act 1991 does not provide an exclusive remedy for the claimant's alleged loss. The facts pleaded, if proved, would show that the flooding was not an inevitable or intended consequence of the authorised works, but resulted from negligence in the manner in which the works were carried out. Therefore, the claim is not barred by the statutory scheme and may proceed at common law.

Parties
Claimant: Anthony Hall; Defendant: Environment Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence / Statutory Compensation / Application to Strike Out Claim for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Jurisdiction, Exclusive Statutory Remedy, Flood Damage, Water Resources Act 1991
Tort Law Statutory Compensation Administrative Law Negligence Jurisdiction Exclusive Statutory Remedy Flood Damage Water Resources Act 1991

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Hall

Claimant

Environment Agency

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence / Statutory Compensation / Application to Strike Out Claim for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory compensation scheme under the Water Resources Act 1991 provides an exclusive remedy, precluding a common law claim for negligence against the Environment Agency for flood damage caused during works.
  2. 2 Whether the facts pleaded by the claimant fall within exceptions to the exclusive statutory remedy as outlined in Marriage v East Norfolk Rivers Catchment Board.

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory compensation scheme under the Water Resources Act 1991 does not provide an exclusive remedy for the claimant's alleged loss. The facts pleaded, if proved, would show that the flooding was not an inevitable or intended consequence of the authorised works, but resulted from negligence in the manner in which the works were carried out. Therefore, the claim is not barred by the statutory scheme and may proceed at common law.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Claim may proceed in the High Court; not struck out.