No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 November 2003
In Rowe v. Vale of White Horse District Council [2003] EWHC 388 (Admin), [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 418 Lightman J. held that the defendant Council could not succeed in a claim for restitution in respect of unpaid sewage services provided to Mr. Rowe, a successor in title to a former tenant of the Council. The former tenant had bought the house from the Council in 1982 and Mr. Rowe had bought the house in 1988. When the Council claimed payment for the services, Mr. Rowe brought proceedings for judicial review of the Council's decision. The Council's defence was based on a claim to restitution for services rendered. From 1982 to March 2001, the Council gave no intimation that it was entitled to charge for the sewage services and Mr. Rowe had no reason to believe that his payments to the Council and to the Thames Water Authority were anything other than all that was demanded of him.