Image from Google Jackets

Bateman and Another v Welsh Water Authority

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 279(6303) 27 September 1986, 1367-1372(4)Publication details: 1986Subject(s): Summary: LT(Ref/84/1985). A claim for compensation under the Drought Act 1976 , for damage sustained from the making of the drought order 1984. The claimants had two fish farms , Vicar`s Mill and Orielton. The water at VM was controlled by a discharge consent made in September 1978, and it limited the amount of water which could flow back into the river below the farm. On 2 July 1984, WWA published a notice of intention to apply for a drought order. The claimants appealed and the matter was resolved at the end of 1985. WWA offered the claimants facilities at their own fish farm, which was accepted. The reference before the LT was to determine a claim for £11,500 consisting of (1) extra expenditure at VM on pumping before the drought order took effect, and (2) additional expenses connected with moving fish stock. LT adopted the test laid down in Harvey v Crawley Development Corporation 1957. It concluded that neither the expenditure incurred, nor the additional pumping operations at VM in July
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS36909 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 1007-1001

LT(Ref/84/1985). A claim for compensation under the Drought Act 1976 , for damage sustained from the making of the drought order 1984. The claimants had two fish farms , Vicar`s Mill and Orielton. The water at VM was controlled by a discharge consent made in September 1978, and it limited the amount of water which could flow back into the river below the farm. On 2 July 1984, WWA published a notice of intention to apply for a drought order. The claimants appealed and the matter was resolved at the end of 1985. WWA offered the claimants facilities at their own fish farm, which was accepted. The reference before the LT was to determine a claim for £11,500 consisting of (1) extra expenditure at VM on pumping before the drought order took effect, and (2) additional expenses connected with moving fish stock. LT adopted the test laid down in Harvey v Crawley Development Corporation 1957. It concluded that neither the expenditure incurred, nor the additional pumping operations at VM in July