Water law decisions in the past year – five judgements to watch out for as a principal or property owner

Right of appeal in the event of an injunction on the area of operation (MÖD 2025:6)

What was the case about? The County Administrative Board ordered a municipality to make a decision on an area of operation pursuant to section 51 of the Act. The municipality appealed the decision to the Land and Environment Court (MMD), which cancelled the decision. The MMD's judgement was subsequently appealed by the community association that managed the joint water and sewerage system in the area in question.

The judge's conclusion: Only the municipality has the right to appeal an injunction from the county administrative board to determine the area of operation. This applies even if the decision has first been reviewed in court. The co-operative association's appeal was rejected by MÖD.

Practical significance: Property owners or community associations wishing to influence the issue of the area of operation can point out to the county administrative board that there is a need to supervise the municipality's obligation under section 6 of the LAV. However, if the county administrative board does not act, or if the municipality appeals against an order issued and is upheld by the Administrative Court, property owners or community associations have no right of appeal. However, property owners or community associations wishing to have the issue of a municipality's obligation to provide public water services examined have the right to have the issue examined through a so-called declaratory action with the MMD as the first instance.

New property owner's liability for unpaid construction fee (MÖD 2025:8)

What was the case about? A water authority sued a property owner for unpaid installation fees. The owner claimed that the fee had already been paid by a previous owner of the property.

MÖD's conclusion: The burden of proof that a fee has been paid lies with the property owner, but the standard of proof is lowered and it is sufficient for the property owner to show that it is highly probable that payment has been made. The property owner could not show this and the Administrative Court obliged the property owner to pay the fee.

Practical significance: It is incumbent on a property owner to show that it is highly probable that payment has been made – which in this case meant that the property owner would have had to secure documentation from the property's previous owner. When drawing up procedures for handling claims, water authorities need to take into account that the standard of proof for property owners has been lowered.

Compensation in the event of redemption of a private water system (MÖD's decision in case M 2024-24)

What was the case about? A property owner claimed SEK 11.8 million in compensation for an individual facility used by approximately 40 properties. The water authority disputed the property owner's claim but agreed that compensation of SEK 60,000 would be paid for the facility.

MÖD's conclusion: The compensation must be determined on the basis of a general assessment of reasonableness, which takes into account the cost of carrying out an equivalent installation with a reasonable deduction for its age and wear. Following an assessment of reasonableness, MÖD awarded the property owner compensation of approximately SEK 3.5 million.

Practical significance: When conducting a general assessment of reasonableness, documentation and expert opinions are of crucial importance. Water utilities need clear processes for the valuation of individual facilities in redemption procedures, which take into account the factors included in a general reasonableness assessment.

Damages in the event of flooding (MÖD's decision in case M 15355-23)

What was the case about? A property owner claimed damages for flooding in a basement, claiming that the cause was a blockage in a water pipe due to a lack of maintenance by the water authority. The question was whether the blockage had been caused in the part of the service line belonging to the property owner or the part of the service line, or main line, belonging to the water authority.

MÖD's conclusion: Although the burden of proof that the public water system fulfils its purpose and meets a reasonable claim for safety rests with the water authority, a property owner has the burden of proof to show that a flood is due to something for which the water authority is responsible. In the case in question, the property owner thus had to show that it was clearly more likely that the blockage occurred in a pipe belonging to the water authority (i.e. a slightly lower standard of proof). The property owner was unable to demonstrate this.

Practical significance: The burden of proof played a decisive role in the outcome of the case. Water undertakers should be proactive in documenting the maintenance and inspection of their facilities and, in the event of a breakdown causing flooding with damage to individuals, secure evidence that the breakdown was not caused in the water undertaker's pipes.

Damages in the event of flooding (MÖD's decision in case M 1662-25)

What was the case about? A property owner claimed damages for damage caused by flooding in a basement. It was undisputed that the flooding had been caused by a leakage of clean water from a pipe belonging to the water authority. The property owner claimed that the leakage was caused by the failure of the public water system to fulfil its purpose and to satisfy reasonable claims for safety under section 13 of the LAV, due to the failure of the water authority to maintain the system. The water undertaker claimed that the system fulfilled its purpose and satisfied reasonable demands for safety.

MÖD's conclusion: The water authority has the burden of proof that the public water system fulfils its purpose and meets reasonable demands for safety. In order to avoid liability for damages, the water authority must therefore show that any damage that has occurred was caused by something other than a deficiency in the performance, maintenance or supervision of the installation. The water authority was not considered, on the basis of the evidence submitted in the case, to have demonstrated this and was ordered to pay damages to the property owner.

Practical significance: Water utilities should be proactive in documenting the maintenance and supervision of their facilities and, in the event of a leakage causing flooding with damage to individuals, secure evidence that the leakage has been caused by something other than a deficiency in the performance, maintenance or supervision of the facility.

Obligation to connect properties under section 6 of the LAV (MÖD's decision in case M 9770-24)

What was the case about? Property owners in an area between Boden and Luleå wanted to be entitled to connection to the municipal water supply network.

MÖD's conclusion: The number of properties totalled 25, which could be divided into three smaller clusters with greater distances between each cluster, and the municipality could show that the properties' deficient individual facilities could be remedied and maintain adequate protection for human health and the environment. MÖD therefore held that the properties could not be considered to constitute such a cluster of buildings as is normally required for the municipality to be obliged to establish an operational area for the settlement. Nor did MÖD consider that there were such strong environmental or health reasons to nevertheless justify an obligation to expand the settlement.

Practical significance: The case clarifies how the concept of "collective settlement" can be assessed when a settlement in question can be divided into discernible clusters and highlights in particular the factors that are decisive in the assessment of whether the expansion obligation, despite the conditions of the settlement (sparser distribution), can still be justified on environmental and health grounds. A water authority needs to take into account that an assessment of what constitutes a clustered settlement always depends on the circumstances of the individual case.

What do these decisions mean for you?

Regardless of whether you are a water authority, adviser or property owner, it is clear from the judgements of the MÖD that:

• The respective burdens of proof of the parties are central in court proceedings.

• Documentation, clear procedures, expert opinions and other evidence are often of crucial importance.

• The application of LAV is nuanced and often depends on the circumstances of the individual case – which requires both legal and technical expertise.

Would you like to know more about any of the decisions, or discuss how they affect your business? Don't hesitate to get in touch!