Calor Gas Ltd v Norfolk County Council

Calor Gas Ltd v Norfolk County Council

The Defendant's restrictive policy on private longitudinal apparatus in highways is lawful, rationally connected to the statutory purpose of protecting public safety, and consistent with the broad discretion afforded by Section 50 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The policy does not render installation impossible, allows for exceptions, and is justified by safety concerns and the distinction between statutory and non-statutory undertakers.

Parties
Claimant: Calor Gas Limited; Defendant: Norfolk County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Street Works Licences, Highway Authority Policy, Statutory Undertakers, Judicial Review, Public Safety, Discretionary Powers
Administrative Law Public Law Street Works Licences Highway Authority Policy Statutory Undertakers Judicial Review Public Safety Discretionary Powers

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Calor Gas Limited

Claimant

Norfolk County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Norfolk County Council's policy on private longitudinal apparatus in highways is unlawful under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether the policy is irrational or inconsistent with statutory purpose
  3. 3 Whether the policy unlawfully fetters discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's restrictive policy on private longitudinal apparatus in highways is lawful, rationally connected to the statutory purpose of protecting public safety, and consistent with the broad discretion afforded by Section 50 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The policy does not render installation impossible, allows for exceptions, and is justified by safety concerns and the distinction between statutory and non-statutory undertakers.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed