Surrey Searches Limited & Ors v Northumbrian Water Limited & Ors

Surrey Searches Limited & Ors v Northumbrian Water Limited & Ors

Most information responsive to CON29DW/CommercialDW is not 'environmental information' under EIR 2004 reg 2(1); only certain questions (e.g. internal flooding, water quality, undertaker identity) are EI. For much of the relevant period, information found to be EI was already publicly available and easily accessible...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Surrey Searches Limited and others; Claimant: PSG Client Services Limited and 1 Other; Claimant: Searchflow Limited (in its own right, as assignee of Watervale Limited and as assignee of Richards Gray Limited and others); Claimant: P&S Gradwell Limited and others; Claimant: Dye and Durham (UK) Limited and others; Defendant: Northumbrian Water Limited; Defendant: United Utilities Water Limited; Defendant: Yorkshire Water Services Limited; Defendant: Severn Trent Water Limited; Defendant: Anglian Water Services Limited; Defendant: South West Water Limited; Defendant: Wessex Water Services Limited; Defendant: Thames Water Utilities Limited; Defendant: Southern Water Services; Defendant: Severn Trent Property Solutions Limited (t/a Severn Trent Searches); Defendant: Wessex Water Enterprises Limited (t/a Wessex Searches)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/competition/restitution) / Stage 1 Trial of Preliminary Issues (interpretation and Application of Environmental Information Regulations 2004)
Outcome
Claimants' claims for restitution/unjust enrichment based on EIR 2004 fail at this stage; most preliminary issues determined in Defendants' favour.
Legal Topics
Environmental Information Regulations (eir), Public Access to Environmental Information, Reasonable Charges for Environmental Information, Restitution for Unlawful Charges, Definition of Environmental Information, Public Authority Obligations, Personal Data Under EIR, Charging Regime Under EIR, Services Outside EIR Regime
Environmental Law Competition Law Restitution/unjust Enrichment Public Law Environmental Information Regulations (eir) Public Access to Environmental Information Reasonable Charges for Environmental Information Restitution for Unlawful Charges +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surrey Searches Limited and others

Claimant

PSG Client Services Limited and 1 Other

Claimant

Searchflow Limited (in its own right, as assignee of Watervale Limited and as assignee of Richards Gray Limited and others)

Claimant

P&S Gradwell Limited and others

Claimant

Dye and Durham (UK) Limited and others

Claimant

Northumbrian Water Limited

Defendant

United Utilities Water Limited

Defendant

Yorkshire Water Services Limited

Defendant

Severn Trent Water Limited

Defendant

Anglian Water Services Limited

Defendant

South West Water Limited

Defendant

Wessex Water Services Limited

Defendant

Thames Water Utilities Limited

Defendant

Southern Water Services

Defendant

Severn Trent Property Solutions Limited (t/a Severn Trent Searches)

Defendant

Wessex Water Enterprises Limited (t/a Wessex Searches)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/competition/restitution) / Stage 1 Trial of Preliminary Issues (interpretation and Application of Environmental Information Regulations 2004)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether information responsive to CON29DW/CommercialDW is 'environmental information' under EIR 2004 reg 2(1)
  2. 2 Whether Defendants 'held' the information at the time of request (reg 3(2))
  3. 3 Whether information was already publicly available and easily accessible (reg 6(1)(b))

Ratio Decidendi

Most information responsive to CON29DW/CommercialDW is not 'environmental information' under EIR 2004 reg 2(1); only certain questions (e.g. internal flooding, water quality, undertaker identity) are EI. For much of the relevant period, information found to be EI was already publicly available and easily accessible to Claimants via public access computers, websites, or on request, so EIR disclosure duty did not arise (reg 6(1)(b)). Some information was not 'held' by Defendants at time of request. Information about internal flooding is personal data and disclosure under EIR would contravene data protection principles. CON29DW orders are not EIR requests; the service is a commercial product...

Court Disposition

Claimants' claims for restitution/unjust enrichment based on EIR 2004 fail at this stage; most preliminary issues determined in Defendants' favour.

Orders

  • Stage 1 issues determined as set out in judgment; no order for restitution or repayment of charges at this stage; parties to agree consequential directions or return for further hearing if required.