Utilities - 1970- 1979

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Paul -v- Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications [1973] RTR 245
1973	Road Traffic, Utilities	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant had a receiver tuned to receive emergency fire brigade messages. He committed an offence under the section.
	Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 5(b)(i)

Wills Trustees -v- Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School [1976] SC (HL) 30
1976 HL Lord Wilberforce, Lord Salmon, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton	Utilities, Transport, Scotland, Land	Casemap
	The public right of navigation (PRN) is a right to public use of the river. The river may be used by the public for purposes of exercise and recreation as well as transport and commerce. At common law PRN cannot be lost by lack of use over time. "A public right of way on highways is established by use over the land of a proprietor." The existence of the right does not depend upon there being two termini for any journey. The right may embrace the passage of articles without human accompaniment, for instance, the floating of logs on the current either singly or in rafts.

Beech Properties v GE Wallis & Sons Ltd [1977] EG 735
1977 Walton J	Utilities	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court was asked whether a vendor of property had satisfied an obligation to provide the purchaser with the right to run foul and surface water from the land sold to a public sewer. The vendor contended that this obligation was satisfied by the right of the purchaser to connect a 12 inch diameter pipe to a 9 inch diameter public sewer at a particular location, pursuant to section 34 of the 1936 Act. Held. The condition was not satisfied, since there remained too much uncertainty. Walton J said: "However, it does appear to me that, wide as the words of subsection (1) may be, and for the moment ignoring the opening qualification, they do not confer upon an individual the right to connect his sewer to the water authority's sewer at any point which he may choose. In most cases, of course, the matter will be quite academic. There will be the water authority's sewer, going along the road; a new house is built in the road; and quite obviously and clearly the owner will expect to have a right to drain into that sewer, and it would be very difficult, assuming that there are no problems under the proviso to subsection (1), to imagine a set of circumstances where the water authority would be entitled to say that he must not connect to that sewer but to some other sewer. Even so, if the new house was built at a crossroads and there were available sewers in both roads, I can see no reason why the owner should be entitled to drain into the sewer of his choice if the water authority required him to drain into the other, which might, for example, well be a relief sewer expressly provided for the district because the other sewer was approaching capacity. Similarly, I see no reason why the owner is entitled to connect at point X rather than an adjacent point Y, if the water authority requires him to connect at Y."
	Public Health Act 1936 34