Robert Lindley Limited v East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Decision date: 11 January 2016
Neutral citation: [2016] UKUT 6 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether pumping operations during flooding of Cottage Field in Dec 2012–Jan 2013 amounted to "flood risk management work" under the Land Drainage Act 1991 as amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and so attracted compensation liability under s.14(5) LDA 1991. The Tribunal found the pumping (including temporary pumping) was within the amended definition, that the Environment Agency was assisting the lead local authority (the Council) and its pumps were to be treated as loaned to the Council, and awarded the agreed £14,500 plus interest for crop damage occurring between 28–31 December 2012.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: low
The decision treats the statutory definition of "flood risk management work" under the LDA (as amended by FWMA) as wide enough to include temporary measures such as pumping, and holds that where a risk management authority (the EA) assists the lead local flood authority in exercising those functions, injuries caused by the resulting pumping can be treated as caused by the exercise of the lead authority’s powers for s.14(5) purposes.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal noted that the Fire Service acted under s.11 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and that, in principle, damage caused by the Fire Service would not fall within s.14(5) LDA 1991; it also observed that difficult agency questions (agency of necessity, ratification) as to the EA acting for the Council arose but were unnecessary to decide in this case.