Infolines Public Networks Ltd v Nottingham City Counsel

Emergency powers under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 must be construed restrictively because they authorise interference with private property. Removing apparatus from a street may be emergency works where needed to end a danger. Its later disposal is not emergency works if removal has ended the danger.

Section 52(2) covers only non-emergency items that cannot reasonably be severed from necessary emergency works. It does not authorise any further action which appears reasonable. An authority which disposes of safely removed apparatus without other lawful authority commits a wrongful interference with goods and is liable for resulting loss. It should instead give the owner reasonable notice and an opportunity to collect the apparatus.

The appellant operated payphone kiosks in Nottingham. It was an undertaker for the purposes of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The respondent, as street authority, found two damaged kiosks, fenced them off, and later removed and disposed of both the kiosks and their telephone equipment without notifying the appellant of the intended disposal.

In December 2008, HHJ Rubery in the Stoke-on-Trent County Court gave the respondent judgment for the costs of the works and dismissed the appellant’s counterclaim. The appellant did not dispute that removal from the street was emergency work. The issue on appeal was whether the subsequent disposal was also emergency work under section 52 and, if not, whether it constituted a wrongful interference with the appellant’s goods.

1. Appeal allowed. Keene LJ, with whom Sir Andrew Morritt and Elias LJ agreed, held that the council was entitled to remove the damaged kiosks as emergency works. It had no statutory authority to dispose of them and their contents after removal. The counterclaim should therefore not have been dismissed.
2. Under section 52(1) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, works qualify as emergency works only where, when executed, they are required to end or prevent existing or imminent circumstances likely to cause danger to persons or property. Removal from the street ended the danger. Disposal did not itself meet that definition, and the council had not proved otherwise as section 52(3) required.
3. Section 52(2) did not assist the council. Disposal was physically and temporally severable from removal. The authority’s ability to return money from the coin-boxes illustrated that it could deal separately with the removed property. The provision must be given a straightforward and reasonably restrictive construction; it does not permit everything an authority may regard as reasonable after addressing the emergency.
4. The unauthorised disposal of the appellant’s property was a wrongful interference with goods, amounting to conversion within section 1 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. There was evidence capable of establishing commercial loss, particularly in respect of operational telephone apparatus. Damages required assessment.
5. Keene LJ added practical guidance. A street authority need not store removed apparatus indefinitely. It should notify the owner of removal and specify a reasonable collection deadline. If the owner then fails to collect it, loss on later disposal is attributable to that inaction. Sachs v Miklos [1948] 2 QB 23, though a bailment case, was sufficiently analogous to guide that approach.

The matter was remitted to the county court for assessment of damages if not settled by agreement.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Allowed the appellant’s appeal and remitted the counterclaim for assessment of damages.
• Stoke-on-Trent County Court (HHJ Rubery) — In December 2008, gave the respondent judgment for the costs of emergency works and dismissed the appellant’s counterclaim for disposal of the kiosks and their contents.