King & Ors v Residential Marine Limited
Decision date: 21 December 2021
Neutral citation: [2021] UKUT 309 (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 how Residential Marine Ltd could lawfully charge long-stay mobile home residents at Port Werburgh Marina for electricity resold from a shared British Gas supply. The Tribunal held that the respondent could not pass on the climate change levy to these domestic residents and that the FTT had erred in how it determined the unit rate; a reasonable blended average reflecting actual weekday/weekend usage proportions should be used and the matter of quantification was remitted to the FTT. The FTT was also criticised for accepting unsupported factual assertions and some arithmetic errors; the respondent was ordered to produce monthly British Gas bills and the parties to seek further FTT directions if they cannot agree.
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: high
Where a contract does not fix the price for resold utilities under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, a reasonable price is to be implied and may be determined by the FTT; that price should, in principle, be a fair blended average of the relevant tariffs apportioned according to actual usage proportions. The climate change levy, being not payable by domestic consumers, should not be passed on by a reseller to qualifying domestic purchasers. Ofgem guidance on resale ceilings and proportioning is relevant background but is not itself incorporated into the parties’ contract.
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 judgment suggested practical approaches where precise monthly allocation is impractical, for example using a blended rate based on proportions of weekday/weekend usage (or a five-sevenths/two-sevenths formula with annual review). It also noted that tribunals should press for fuller evidence, particularly where a respondent alone can produce key usage and billing data.