South West Water Authority v Rumble No 2
Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; (1987) JPL 115-121(7)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 30 April 1986. Appeal against a cc decision that the owner of a lockup shop in Newquay, Cornwall was discriminated against, under Water Act 1973 s30(5) , for the assessment of payment of water rates . The shop did not have or require any supply of water and the owner was not charged for the supply of water. The building did however, have gutters and downpipes which carried the rain into the water authority`s storm water and water surface drainage system. The authority claimed that the shop owner was liable for sewerage and sewerage disposal rates because he had the benefit of this facility. The cc held that as the appellant had no direct connection to the authority`s sewerage and sewage disposal system, he was not liable for the charge. Also raised a question of discrimination under s30(5) and held that as the charges were based on the rateable value s of the premises, the appellant was discriminated against. On appeal by the water authority, CA held that the appellant did not hav| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37459 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 4670-1001 |
CA 30 April 1986. Appeal against a cc decision that the owner of a lockup shop in Newquay, Cornwall was discriminated against, under Water Act 1973 s30(5) , for the assessment of payment of water rates . The shop did not have or require any supply of water and the owner was not charged for the supply of water. The building did however, have gutters and downpipes which carried the rain into the water authority`s storm water and water surface drainage system. The authority claimed that the shop owner was liable for sewerage and sewerage disposal rates because he had the benefit of this facility. The cc held that as the appellant had no direct connection to the authority`s sewerage and sewage disposal system, he was not liable for the charge. Also raised a question of discrimination under s30(5) and held that as the charges were based on the rateable value s of the premises, the appellant was discriminated against. On appeal by the water authority, CA held that the appellant did not hav