GRAEME AND ROSEMARY SURTEES v UNITED UTILITIES WATER plc
Decision date: 9 July 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 384 (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 concerns a Schedule 12 compensation claim by Graeme and Rosemary Surtees against United Utilities for damage caused by laying a water main across their land. The tribunal found the wider affected area was 0.26 acres, calculated various heads of loss (including reinstatement, loss of production, weed control, consequential loss, fees and disturbance) and awarded a total of £5,886.16. The tribunal rejected an order for specific performance and awarded monetary compensation instead. The judge criticised United Utilities' conduct in negotiation and in handling evidence.
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 parties dispute the extent of land affected, compensation under Schedule 12 must be calculated from the tribunal’s factual findings of the actual area affected; where contractor quotations cover a larger area than the tribunal finds, costs can be adjusted pro rata and by sensible assumptions about volumes/weights to scale the quotation to the agreed area. The tribunal also held it could not order specific performance under Schedule 12 and should award monetary compensation.
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 indicated, as non-binding practical guidance, that it may adopt sensible middle-ground assumptions (for example, an adopted density of 1.75 tonnes/m3) where expert evidence is absent, and that minimum-charge items in contractor quotes can be treated as non‑pro rata when scaling down quotations.