Brendon International Limited v Water Plus Limited & Anor

Brendon International Limited v Water Plus Limited & Anor

The sewer in question was private, not public. The defendants were never entitled to charge for surface water and highway drainage services, and no services were provided to the claimant. Payments were made under a mistaken belief induced by the invoices. The defendants were unjustly enriched and must repay the sums received. The claim is not time-barred as the claimant did not discover the mistake until 2018 and was not put on inquiry before then.

Parties
Claimant: Brendon International Limited; Defendant: Water Plus Limited; Defendant: United Utilities Water Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract/restitution) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, Mistake, Failure of Consideration, Statutory Powers of Sewerage Undertakers, Limitation Periods, Evidential Burden, Public Vs Private Sewer Status
Contract Law Restitution Statutory Interpretation Unjust Enrichment Mistake Failure of Consideration Statutory Powers of Sewerage Undertakers Limitation Periods +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendon International Limited

Claimant

Water Plus Limited

Defendant

United Utilities Water Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract/restitution) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were entitled to charge for surface water and highway drainage services when the sewer was private and not public
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to recover sums paid for services not provided (unjust enrichment/total failure of consideration/mistake)
  3. 3 Whether any part of the claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The sewer in question was private, not public. The defendants were never entitled to charge for surface water and highway drainage services, and no services were provided to the claimant. Payments were made under a mistaken belief induced by the invoices. The defendants were unjustly enriched and must repay the sums received. The claim is not time-barred as the claimant did not discover the mistake until 2018 and was not put on inquiry before then.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Defendants to repay claimant £152,027.53 (United Utilities: £122,013.28; Water Plus: £30,014.25)
  • Defendants to pay simple interest at 4% per annum to judgment (precise sum to be agreed or determined)