Veolia Water Central Ltd v London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority

Under section 57 of the Water Industry Act 1991, a fire hydrant is in “good working order” when it is fit for firefighting, does not present a material contamination risk to the water supply, and is not dangerous to users or the public. A minor leak does not necessarily require immediate repair. Repair is required where leakage causes dangerous conditions, significant water accumulation, contamination risk, or threatens the hydrant’s firefighting operation. The water undertaker may recover only reasonably incurred repair costs and attributable overheads, not profit or unrelated expenditure. The fire authority bears the burden of proving that damage resulted from authorised third-party use for the purposes of section 57(5A).

Veolia Water Central Ltd, formerly Three Valleys Water plc, claimed approximately £527,299 from London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority for repairs to fire hydrants in London. The claim concerned invoices for leaks, replacement hydrants, frames and covers, and false spindle caps.

The parties asked the court to determine four preliminary issues concerning the meaning of “good working order” under section 57 of the Water Industry Act 1991, liability for specified sample repairs, the burden of proof under section 57(5A), and the recoverability of overheads and other charges.

1. Meaning of good working order. The court construed section 57 of the Water Industry Act 1991 by reference to the statutory purpose of providing access to mains water for firefighting. The hydrant includes the valve, pipework, pit, frame and cover.
2. A hydrant must be kept in a condition such that it is fit for firefighting, does not present a risk of contaminating the water supply, and is not a source of danger to users or members of the public. A broken or inaccessible cover, a jammed valve, overflowing water, or substantial standing water creating a backflow risk may therefore require remedial work.
3. A minor spindle leak, or a minor leak through the main valve discharged through a functioning frost valve, does not of itself mean that the hydrant is outside good working order where water does not accumulate significantly in the outlet or pit. The leak should be reported, and the fire authority should inspect it promptly to assess whether the hydrant may become inoperable before its next inspection.
4. The court rejected the argument that every leak required immediate repair. It also held that a missing false spindle cap did not, on the evidence, place the hydrant outside good working order, particularly because firefighters carried replacement caps.
5. For section 57(5A), the burden was on London Fire to prove that damage was caused by authorised third-party use. If it established operational misuse and that its own operatives had not used the hydrant, an evidential burden could then fall on the water undertaker.
6. Under section 57(5), the water undertaker could recover actual and reasonably incurred repair costs, including an attributable proportion of genuine overheads, but not profit or unrelated expenditure.
7. The sample claims succeeded in part. Claims B, C and D were recoverable; claim K was recoverable only for attendance and cleaning the pit, not for the improperly performed repack; and claim J was recoverable in its particular circumstances. Other sample claims failed or had been abandoned. The four preliminary issues were answered accordingly.

First-instance judgment. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.