London Underground Ltd (LUL) has made a successful claim to pay less in compensation for sewer disruption caused by work during the Jubilee Line extension.
The Court of Appeal has held that LUL was liable to compensate Thames Water Utilities Ltd at a rate governed solely by the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991.
This amounts to an 18% reduction on the rate payable under the London Underground Act 1992 and the London Underground Jubilee Act 1993.
LUL was authorised by the 1992 and 1993 Acts to construct the £3.5bn extension from Green Park in central London, to Stratford in east London.
The extension involved works in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster, which interfered with the installations of other public utilities. The conflicting interests of the various parties were therefore regulated by legislation.
Thames Water, the company responsible for the provision and maintenance of a network of sewers in London, including low level sewer no 1, which runs through Westminster, sought compensation for disturbance to the sewer caused by LUL’s engineering works.
The parties agreed that LUL was required to bear the expense of the disturbance, but disputed which of the two statutory regimes, namely the 1991 Act or the 1992 and 1993 Acts collectively, should govern the assessment of compensation.
The crucial provision was section 101(1) of the 1991 Act, which came into force after the 1992 Act but before the 1993 Act. Section 101(1) provided that any previous special enactment that regulated the execution of street works in an inconsistent manner should cease to have effect, while any subsequent enactment should not be construed as making an inconsistent provision unless a contrary intention appeared.
Joseph Harper QC, counsel for LUL, argued that the works carried out by or on behalf of LUL were “street works”, as defined in section 48(3) of the 1991 Act, notwithstanding the fact that they were also “major transport works”.
He maintained that the two categories were not “mutually exclusive”, and that the 1992 and 1993 Acts were caught by the two limbs of section 101(1).
The Court of Appeal has agreed, stating that “the works carried out on behalf of LUL were plainly ‘street works’ within the meaning of section 48(3)” because they “involved ‘placing apparatus’, ‘inspecting, maintaining, adjusting, repairing, altering or moving apparatus’ and works ‘required for or incidental to any such works’”.
Giving the judgment of the court, Maurice Kay LJ said: “I am satisfied that, so far as ‘street works’ are concerned, but not in other circumstances, section 101 ensures that the 1991 Act and the regulations made under it now provide a comprehensive code, that the material parts of the 1992 Act ceased to have effect on the coming into force of section 101, and that the 1993 Act is to be construed in the same way”.
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v London Underground Ltd Court of Appeal (Brooke, Jonathan Parker and Maurice Kay LJJ) 18 May 2004.
Lord Kingsland QC and Douglas Edwards (instructed by the solicitor to Thames Water Utilities Ltd) appeared for the appellant; Joseph Harper QC (instructed by the solicitor to London Underground Ltd) appeared for the respondent.
References: EGi Legal News 19/5/04
