Case Nos: CA-2024-002136 - [2025] EWCA Civ 921

Haulage costs

Ground 3 of the Council’s grounds of appeal states as follows:

“The learned judge … erred in his construction of proviso (c), and in particular in determining that proviso (c) related only to handling Third Party Waste at the Facilities (and therefore did not apply to the cost of hauling Third Party Waste to the Main Facility from other waste transfer stations, performing the same function, involving the same costs and situated a similar distance from the Main Facility).”

Amongst the costs which FCCB has claimed to deduct are costs of transporting waste to Greatmoor from places other than High Heavens WTS. The Council maintains that such deductions are barred by proviso (b) and/or proviso (c) in the definition of “Third Party Income”, and it relies in particular on proviso (c). However, it is FCCB’s case that proviso (c) applies only to “costs of handling or processing” at one of the Facilities and so does not bite on costs of handling waste elsewhere. The Judge agreed and, accordingly, held that “the haulage and other sub-contractor costs which FCC has sought to deduct in relation to the income the subject of this case are in my judgment properly deductible”: see paragraph 246 of the Judgment. The Judge considered that such costs “plainly fall within the definition of directly incurred costs; they are specifically and solely related to the generation of income other than gate fee income, they are not the costs of operating or haulage between the Facilities envisaged in the Base Case and nor are they costs of handling or processing waste at the Facilities”: see paragraph 246.