B1/2002/0811 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 966
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
CIVIL DIVISION 
ON APPEAL FROM SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Thompson QC)
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London

Tuesday 2 July 2002 
Before:

LORD JUSTICE DYSON 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Between: 
SOUTHERN WATER SERVICES LTD
Claimant/Respondent 

and: 
ALAN FREDERICK DENNIS 
Defendant/Applicant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Transcript prepared from the Steno Notes
of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2HD
Tel:  0207 404 1400
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

The Application appeared on his own behalf 
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT
Tuesday 2 July 2002 
1.	LORD JUSTICE DYSON: In these proceedings, Southern Water Services claimed £526.35 by way of arrears of water service charges. Mr Dennis served a defence. His principal defence was that the charges had been calculated in a discriminatory manner and that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They had been calculated on the basis of a rateable value for his property of £117.71. The way he put it in his defence was this:
“This is discrimination against Defendant, as sole occupier of property, as identical charges made to households living in homes of equal ratable value, but occupied by two persons. It is absolute fact that water use for two persons will be double that of one person in every use and disposal of water, bath/shower, laundry, cooking, drinking, flushing toilet. Added to the £117.71 is a standing charge of £60, being a surcharge on service charges based on ratable value of approx 51%. The same standing charge is added to all residential billings, so on homes of highest ratable value are only approx 5%. This is also total discrimination in favour of the rich.” 
2.	On 12 December 2001 the district judge struck out the defence as showing no reasonable prospect of success and ordered that there be judgment entered in favour of the claimant for £526.35 plus costs of £116.75. Mr Dennis was refused permission to appeal. On 7 March 2002 he applied to Judge Anthony Thompson QC for permission to appeal. Although the judge did not expressly grant permission, he must have done so impliedly because he allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the amount of the judgment to £502.98. This was to reflect a payment of £23.37 for which the claimant had not given credit.
3.	In seeking permission to appeal to this court, Mr Dennis repeats his discrimination arguments, which failed in both courts below. Article 14 of the Convention provides:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
4.	Distinctions of the kind complained of by Mr Dennis are in a way undoubtedly discriminatory. In a sense, all distinctions discriminate: that is the essence of a distinction. But in my opinion, the distinctions of which Mr Dennis complains do not fall within the ambit of Article 14. First, Mr Dennis has to identify a right set forth in the Convention which itself is violated as a result of the discrimination of which he complains. He has not sought to do so. I can see, however, that it might be argued that Article 8 would be a right of the kind whose enjoyment falls within the compass of Article 14. But even if he gets that far, he has to show that, arguably, the levying of water charges in the way that was done here and of which he complains amounts to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14. It seems to me that it plainly does not fall within the scope of Article 14. It does not fall within any of the categories there listed, nor is it something which is similar or analogous to any of those categories. 
5.	For these reasons I am satisfied that he has no real prospects of success on this appeal, and I would dismiss this application.
ORDER: Application refused