Veolia Water Central Ltd v London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority

Veolia Water Central Ltd v London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority

A fire hydrant is in 'good working order' if it is fit for firefighting, does not present a contamination risk, and is not dangerous to users or the public. Minor leaks that do not impair these functions or cause significant water accumulation do not require immediate repair at the fire authority's expense. The fire...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Veolia Water Central Limited (formerly Three Valleys Water plc); Defendant: London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Declaratory judgment on preliminary issues; partial success for both parties.
Legal Topics
Maintenance Obligations for Fire Hydrants, Interpretation of 'good Working Order' Under Water Industry Act 1991, Allocation of Repair Costs Between Water Undertaker and Fire Authority, Burden of Proof Under S.57(5 A) Water Industry Act, Recovery of Overheads and Profit in Statutory Charges
Statutory Interpretation Public Utilities Law Contract Law Maintenance Obligations for Fire Hydrants Interpretation of 'good Working Order' Under Water Industry Act 1991 Allocation of Repair Costs Between Water Undertaker and Fire Authority Burden of Proof Under S.57(5 A) Water Industry Act Recovery of Overheads and Profit in Statutory Charges

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Veolia Water Central Limited (formerly Three Valleys Water plc)

Claimant

London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What categories of repair work qualify for payment under section 57(5) of the Water Industry Act 1991?
  2. 2 For the sample repairs, were the works necessary to keep the fire hydrants in 'good working order'?
  3. 3 Who bears the burden of proof under section 57(5A) regarding damage by authorised third party use?

Ratio Decidendi

A fire hydrant is in 'good working order' if it is fit for firefighting, does not present a contamination risk, and is not dangerous to users or the public. Minor leaks that do not impair these functions or cause significant water accumulation do not require immediate repair at the fire authority's expense. The fire authority is liable for repairs only where these thresholds are met. The burden of proof under s.57(5A) is on the fire authority to show damage by authorised third party use. The water undertaker may recover actual costs and attributable overheads, but not profit.

Court Disposition

Declaratory judgment on preliminary issues; partial success for both parties.

Orders

  • London Fire is liable for the costs of repairs in sample claims B, C, D, J, and part of K; not liable for others as specified.
  • Three Valleys may recover actual costs and attributable overheads for qualifying repairs, but not profit.