Court of Appeal Rules on Electricity Code Liability for Landlord in SmartestEnergy Business Ltd v Odeon Arcade Ltd
On 4 November 2026, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) handed down judgment in SmartestEnergy Business Limited v Odeon Arcade Limited ([2026] EWCA Civ 1412), an appeal turning on the correct interpretation of the Electricity Code set out in Schedule 6 to the Electricity Act 1989, specifically paragraph 3(1) of that Code. SmartestEnergy Business Limited, a licensed electricity supplier, had presented a winding-up petition against Odeon Arcade Limited in April 2024, claiming £106,914.25 for electricity supplied to three retail units (Units 8a, 9a, and 12) at Odeon Arcade in Leicester over the period from July 2021 to April 2023 and ongoing standing charges. The electricity was supplied through a single bulk meter located in a basement beneath the arcade, with sub-meters downstream measuring supply to the individual units and communal areas. Odeon Arcade acquired the premises in June 2021. Its sole director argued that the units were tenanted throughout the relevant period and not vacant, raising questions about the proper allocation of liability under the Electricity Code as between supplier, landlord, and tenants. British Gas Trading Limited intervened in the appeal by way of written submissions, instructed by Wedlake Bell LLP. The appellant SmartestEnergy was also represented by Wedlake Bell, with Andrew Westwood KC and Eoin MacLachlan appearing as counsel. The respondent Odeon was represented by Whitmore Law Solicitors, with Clifford Darton KC and Andrew Shipley as counsel. The appeal was heard on 20 October 2026 before Lord Justice Newey, Lady Justice Falk, and Lord Justice Fancourt.
Why this matters
This Court of Appeal judgment clarifies how the Electricity Code allocates liability between licensed electricity suppliers and landlords where supply passes through a bulk meter to multi-occupied commercial premises. The question of who is liable for electricity debts when retail units are tenanted is commercially significant for property owners, letting agents, and energy suppliers managing large multi-tenanted estates. The intervention of British Gas Trading as a third party signals that the legal industry sees the outcome as having broader market application beyond the specific parties. The case also illustrates how winding-up petitions can be used as debt enforcement tools in commercial energy supply disputes, raising questions about appropriate use of insolvency process for contested debts.
On the Ground
Energy supply and property law practices will need to advise landlord and property management clients on the implications of this judgment for their exposure to electricity costs at multi-occupied premises with bulk metering arrangements. Commercial litigation teams advising energy suppliers will review their debt recovery procedures in light of the Court of Appeal's reading of paragraph 3(1) of the Electricity Code. Wedlake Bell acted for both SmartestEnergy and the British Gas Trading intervener. A trainee on this type of matter would prepare the trial bundle, assist with witness statement bundles, draft chronologies of the supply and tenancy arrangements, and research relevant provisions of the Electricity Act 1989 and the Electricity Code.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“What are the key legal issues that arise when an electricity supplier tries to recover unpaid bills from a landlord rather than the tenant, and how does bulk metering complicate the picture?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved