TORT

The defendant was a water undertaker for the purposes of the Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA 1991). One of its mains water pipes burst. A considerable quantity of the escaped water entered premises occupied by the claimants. In proceedings brought by the claimants, the defendant admitted liability pursuant to s 209, WIA 1991. One issue was whether the claimants could recover the cost of staff time.

HELD The fact and extent of the diversion of staff time must be properly established. If claimants do not adduce evidence which it would have been reasonable to adduce, they are at risk of a finding that this has not been established. The claimants also had to establish that the diversion had caused significant disruption to their businesses.

Even though it might be that strictly the claim should be cast in terms of a loss of revenue attributable to the diversion of staff time, despite this, in the ordinary case, unless the defendant could establish the contrary, it is reasonable for the court to infer from the disruption that, had their time not been thus diverted, the staff would have applied it to activities which would, directly or indirectly, have generated revenue in an amount at least equal to the costs for employing them during that time.