Neil Kitchener KC and Jarret Huang acted for Castle Water in successfully resisting an appeal on the construction of the Water (Meters) Regulations 1988 brought by a non-domestic customer against Castle Water: B & D Clays & Chemicals Limited v Castle Water Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 171. The proper construction of the Regulations was described by the Court of Appeal as being “critically important” for the statutory scheme, which impacted “millions of domestic and non-domestic consumers”.
The appeal concerned the proper interpretation of the Water (Meters) Regulations 1988 (the “Regulations”), which govern the right of water undertakers to impose charges for the supply of water to premises. The core issue was whether water meter readings are definitive evidence of water volume supplied unless the meter is proven to register incorrectly through prescribed statutory tests, or whether other evidence can be relied on to show that a meter is unreliable.
The Appellant’s appeal was mounted on three grounds. First, the Appellant contended that extrinsic evidence of a meter’s (alleged) unreliability was admissible in determining whether the meter was defective. Second, the Appellant sought to rely on the evidence of a jointly instructed expert witness to show that, although the water meter had not been shown by the prescribed statutory tests to be registering incorrectly, it was nonetheless defective and so could not be relied upon as accurately recording the amount of water supplied. Third, the Appellant argued that the dispute should have been remitted for further evidence at first instance.
The Court of Appeal (Lewis, Peter Jackson, and Snowden LJJ) dismissed the appeal by a majority on the first ground, and unanimously on the second and third grounds.
On the first ground, Lewis and Peter Jackson LJJ concluded that evidence other than that obtained by the statutory testing process is not admissible to show that a water meter is unreliable or that the volume of water supplied should be measured in some other way. This was because Regulation 8 of the Regulations provided a “comprehensive code by which the volume of water supplied to any premises is to be measured and hence, how charges are to be determined” (at [41]). The appeal therefore failed in limine.
On the remaining two grounds, the Court unanimously accepted that the joint expert had exceeded the scope of his remit, and that there was insufficient evidence – even assuming such evidence was admissible – to conclude that the meter in question was registering incorrectly. This was a fortiori the case in circumstances where the meter had in fact passed the statutory test, and the Appellant was alleging an “intermittent” fault with the meter.
Neil Kitchener KC and Jarret Huang appeared in the Court of Appeal for Castle Water, the successful Respondent, instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP.
View Judgment