Key Facts
- •Brendon International Limited (Brendon) paid over £150,000 in sewerage fees to Water Plus Limited and United Utilities Water Limited (Appellants) between 2000 and 2019.
- •The dispute centered on whether the sewer receiving surface water from Brendon's premises was a 'public sewer' under the Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA 1991).
- •The lower court held that the Appellants failed to prove the sewer was public, that fees were paid under a mistake, and that the claim wasn't time-barred.
- •Appellants appealed, challenging the burden of proof, the admissibility of evidence, and the application of limitation rules.
- •United Utilities' internal records and public sewer maps initially showed no public sewer serving Brendon's premises, despite charging for services.
- •A 2009 report obtained by Brendon showed no public sewer serving the property but indicated that not all sewers are recorded on maps.
Legal Principles
The general rule is that 'he who asserts must prove'. The legal burden rests on the party making the allegation.
Emmanuel v Avison [2020] EWHC 1696 (Ch)
The evidential burden is the obligation to adduce sufficient evidence for the matter to be considered by the court; it's not a 'burden of proof'.
Jayasena v R [1970] AC 618
Section 219(1) WIA 1991 defines 'public sewer' and 'private sewer' but doesn't create a presumption that a sewer is private.
Water Industry Act 1991, Section 219(1)
In restitution claims, the claimant bears the legal burden of proving the essential elements, including the mistake.
Case Law on Restitution
Section 3 of the Civil Evidence Act 1972 allows opinion evidence from qualified experts; CPR 35 regulates expert evidence but doesn't apply to witnesses not formally instructed as experts.
Civil Evidence Act 1972, Section 3; CPR 35
Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 extends the limitation period for claims based on mistake until the claimant discovers or could reasonably have discovered the mistake.
Limitation Act 1980, Section 32
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The lower court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the Appellants and misapplied the law on limitation.
Case remitted to the lower court.
The lower court judge should re-evaluate the evidence applying the correct legal principles regarding burden of proof, admissibility of Mr. Griffiths' evidence, and limitation.