## Facts

- The case concerned the interpretation of the Land Drainage Act 1991, specifically the Environment Agency's statutory powers regarding drainage and flood defense.
- Mr. Rowland claimed the Environment Agency had represented that it would maintain a flood defense wall, which was a factor in his decision to purchase and develop property.
- Mr. Rowland argued he relied on this representation to his detriment.
- The Court of Appeal analysed whether the Agency's actions and representations fell within its statutory powers or were ultra vires.

## Issues

1. Whether the Environment Agency made representations exceeding its statutory authority under the Land Drainage Act 1991.
2. Whether estoppel could prevent a public authority from denying reliance on such ultra vires representations.
3. Whether the claimant could establish a legitimate expectation arising from the Agency’s representations concerning flood defense maintenance.
4. How the balance should be struck between individual reliance and the statutory limits/public interest.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal clarified the precise scope of the Environment Agency’s statutory duties and powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991.
- It was determined that the representations made by the Agency regarding maintenance of the flood defense wall were ultra vires if they exceeded its statutory authority.
- The court reaffirmed that estoppel against a public authority is limited, particularly regarding ultra vires acts, referencing Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council.
- The court analysed the requirements for establishing legitimate expectation and emphasised the need to balance such expectations with statutory limitations and the wider public interest.
- The court provided guidance on when public bodies can be held accountable for ultra vires representations upon which individuals have relied.

## Legal Principles

- Public authorities are limited to powers expressly granted by statute; actions beyond statutory power are ultra vires.
- Estoppel generally cannot compel a public body to act beyond its legal powers, though detrimental reliance is a factor for consideration in limited circumstances.
- The doctrine of legitimate expectation may arise from representations by public bodies, but must be balanced against statutory limitations and public interest.
- Careful statutory interpretation is required to determine the legitimacy of representations and the extent of agency power.

## Conclusion

Rowland v Environment Agency is a significant decision on the legal consequences of ultra vires representations by public authorities, clarifying the doctrines of estoppel and legitimate expectation in administrative law and underscoring the importance of statutory limits in governing public body actions.

Rowland v Environment Agency [2005] Ch 1 [2003] EWCA Civ 1885