CourtRoyal Court
Judge(Le Masurier, Bailiff and Jurats Luce and Downer):
Judgment Date19 October 1973
Date19 October 1973
(Le Masurier, Bailiff and Jurats Luce and Downer):

F.C. Hamon for the plaintiff.

P. de C. Mourant for the defendant.

Electricitysupplier's rightsaccess to premisesJEC's right to disconnect impliedly gives right of access to customer's premises for that purposeshould always request permission and if refused must apply to court

Electricitysupplier's rights security for servicesJEC entitled under Electricity (Jersey) Laws, art. 14(b) to require security for payment after connecting supplymay specify nature and size of security subject to reasonableness statute conferring powers and privileges

LE MASURIER, BAILIFF: The Jersey Electricity Company Limited is the only producer and supplier of electrical energy on a commercial scale in the Island. Its operations are governed by the Electricity (Jersey) Laws, 1937 and 1954.

Mr. Barker has been the owner or occupier of several properties in the Island and is currently the owner of No. 4 High Street, St. Aubin, a property which he has converted into a restaurant seating some 240 persons and which he is offering for sale for the sum of 80,000.

On the 28th April, 1965, Mr. Barker signed an application for a supply of electricity to No. 4 High Street and agreed in his application to be bound by and observe the printed Official Regulations and Conditions of Supply and to pay on demand for all electricity consumed. Mr. Barker refused to admit that he was given a copy of the Official Regulations and Conditions but we find that he was.

Condition 18 of the Conditions reads


The Consumer will permit the Company's representative free access at all reasonable times for the inspection of the installation, or the disconnection, repair, or removal of the Company's property."

It is clear from his dealings with the Company, and on his own admission, that Mr. Barker has ever been most reluctant to pay the Company's charges for the electrical energy supplied to his various properties and that the Company has been put to a good deal of inconvenience and has had to expend much time in order to recover monies due to it from time to time by Mr. Barker.

The Company's method of dealing with its customers who consistently fail to meet their financial obligations to it is to follow the sending of the ordinary quarterly account by sending a final notice on which is printed in large red type this notice:

"Payment of your account as stated below does not appear to have been received and we regret that unless the amount due is paid in full within seven days from the date of this notice it will be necessary to disconnect the supply to your premises.

Should one of our officials be sent for this purpose the sum of 1 will be added to your account to cover the cost of his visit. If payment of the arrears and the additional sum of 1 is not made, our official will proceed to disconnect the supply forthwith. Reconnection will only be made following payment of the amount owing, together with payment of the fee to cover his first visit and a further 1 for the subsequent visit to reconnect, and this only after reasonable notice to reconnect has been given."

At the end of September Quarter 1972 Mr. Barker owed the Company 39.79 for energy supplied to No. 4 High Street and an account was sent to him in the usual way and in the usual way he failed to pay it. A final notice was sent to him on October 18th, 1972, and on November 7th, 1972, Mr. Alex Le Breton Single, the Company's disconnection officer, acting under the authority of the Company's General Manager, went to No. 4 High Street to collect the amount due together with an attendance fee and, if the amount was not forthcoming, to disconnect the supply. In the event the amount was not forthcoming and he disconnected the supply.

Mr. Single said in evidence that when he arrived at No. 4 High Street on November 7th, 1972, he was met by a Mr. Michael Pickstock who was working there on the reconstruction of the property. The reconstruction was in its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Lesquende Ltd v Planning and Environment Committee
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 13 mars 1996
    ...1992, unreported, considered. (2) Baker (ne Knott) v. Public Works Cttee., 1968 J.J. 965, applied. (3) Barker v. Jersey Elec. Co. Ltd., 1973 J.J. 2491, considered. (4) Burt v. States, 1994 JLR 245, applied. (5) Corocraft v. Pan American Airways Inc., [1969] 1 Q.B. 616; [1969] 1 All E.R. 82;......
  • M and R Properties Ltd v Jersey Electricity Company Ltd
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 25 septembre 1987
    ...L.J.R. 881; (1948), 64 T.L.R. 135, dicta of Jenkins, J. applied. Additional case cited by counsel: Barker v. Jersey Elec. Co. Ltd., 1973 J.J. 2491. Legislation construed: Jersey Electricity Company Limited: Pouvoirs, Droits, Privilges et Obligations Law, 1937, art. 13: The relevant terms of......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT