Southern Water Services Ltd v Dennis

Article 14 requires a claimant first to identify a Convention right whose enjoyment is affected by the alleged discrimination. The claimant must then show that the distinction falls within a listed or analogous ground and within the ambit of that right. A charging scheme does not engage Article 14 merely because it distinguishes between households or has a relatively greater effect on properties with lower rateable values. Water charges calculated by reference to rateable value, together with a common standing charge, did not constitute discrimination within Article 14.

Southern Water Services Ltd claimed arrears of water charges. The charges were calculated by reference to the property’s rateable value and included a standing charge. Mr Dennis alleged that the scheme discriminated against sole occupiers and in favour of wealthier households, contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

A district judge struck out the defence and entered judgment for the claimant. Permission to appeal was refused. On a further application, the county court judge reduced the judgment to reflect a payment for which credit had not been given. Mr Dennis then sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether the alleged discrimination fell within the ambit of Article 14.

Lord Justice Dyson delivered a single judgment and refused the application.

1. Article 14 framework. A claimant must identify a right set forth in the Convention whose enjoyment is allegedly affected by the discrimination. The claimant must also show that the alleged distinction amounts to discrimination within the meaning and ambit of Article 14.
2. Possible Article 8 connection. The court recognised that Article 8 might arguably be a Convention right capable of bringing the complaint within Article 14. Mr Dennis had not identified such a right in his defence. Even assuming that Article 8 could be relied upon, the complaint still failed at the discrimination stage.
3. No relevant discrimination. The distinctions arising from the water-charging scheme did not fall within any of the grounds listed in Article 14, or within a similar or analogous category. The complaint that a sole occupier could pay the same rateable-value charge as a household with two occupants, and that the standing charge had a proportionately greater effect on lower-value properties, therefore disclosed no arguable Article 14 violation.
4. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The application was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was refused.
• Southampton County Court: On 7 March 2002, Judge Anthony Thompson QC reduced the judgment to £502.98 to credit a payment of £23.37.
• District judge: On 12 December 2001, the defence was struck out as showing no reasonable prospect of success and judgment was entered for £526.35 plus costs.