In a significant legal decision, the High Court has denied 14 search providers permission to appeal a ruling dismissing their claim of overcharging against nine English water companies.
The decision, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Smith, also awarded the water companies 100% of their costs. The judge noted that the five grounds for appeal presented by the search providers lacked a real prospect of success, and did not raise any new points of law. Instead, they revolved around the application of established legal principles to specific facts of the case.
In his main judgement issued in June, Justice Smith refuted the argument from the search providers that the entirety of the information required for a CON29DW report fell under ‘environmental information’ (EI) as defined by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, which would necessitate free or reasonably priced access. Although he considered that 11 answers in the report were EI, 14 other elements, including water and sewer maps, and asset connections, were not, meaning the regulations did not apply to their pricing.
This ruling was part of the case’s ‘stage 1′ trial, with future trials set to assess possible unjust enrichment and financial compensation. In seeking appeal, the claimants contended that the court misapplied the criteria for what constitutes EI and failed to align with the Court of Appeal’s guidance. However, Justice Smith asserted that the court had thoroughly considered these legal precedents and the Environmental Information Regulations’ objectives, performing a detailed analysis based on the purpose, nature, and context of the information.
Furthermore, on the subject of costs, Justice Smith dismissed the claimants’ suggestion that they pay only 40% to 50% of the defendants’ costs, and instead upheld a full cost award for the water companies. He reasoned that despite losing on some issues, the defendants were largely successful on the main points of the case. Consequently, he decided against reducing the cost award.
The judge also declined to grant the defendants’ request for indemnity costs, noting that despite procedural disagreements and differing strategies, none of the parties acted unreasonably enough to warrant such a measure.
On the adjustment of cost payments, Justice Smith ruled that 65% of the actual unaudited costs and 90% of the budgeted costs of the water companies would be a suitable payment on account. The precise financial amounts, however, were not disclosed in the ruling.
Following the initial ruling, the search providers communicated their satisfaction with certain aspects of the judgement acknowledging important issues relating to environmental information, while indicating that they are reviewing their legal options for the upcoming ‘stage 2’ trial.
This ruling highlights the judicial process’s complexity and the rigorous standards applied when interpreting established legal principles in the context of environmental information and related costs.
