The case of Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd is a significant legal decision in the context of environmental law and the rights of property owners against statutory undertakers. The Supreme Court’s ruling overturned the decisions of the lower courts, which had previously held that the Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA 1991) impliedly ousted common law claims for nuisance and trespass in cases of unauthorised discharges of untreated foul water into the Manchester Ship Canal by United Utilities Water Ltd (UU).
The core issue in this case was whether the Manchester Ship Canal Company (MSCC) could bring a private law claim in nuisance and/or trespass against UU for the unauthorised discharges. The Supreme Court held that such claims were not barred by the legislative scheme under the WIA 1991. The Court found that the lower courts had misinterpreted the precedent set by Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd UKHL 66, which dealt with claims for damages due to repeated flooding from an overloaded sewerage system. The Supreme Court clarified that Marcic did not address the specific issue of polluting discharges into a watercourse and thus did not preclude common law claims in such contexts.
The Supreme Court’s decision has several important implications. Firstly, it reaffirms the availability of common law remedies for property owners affected by pollution from statutory undertakers, even in the presence of a comprehensive regulatory framework like the WIA 1991. The Court emphasised that sections 117(5) and 186(3) of the WIA 1991 did not expressly or impliedly oust common law rights and remedies. Instead, these provisions envisaged the survival of common law rights to protect property interests from pollution and nuisance.
Secondly, the ruling potentially opens the door for an increase in legal claims by property owners against sewerage undertakers for pollution. The judgment underscores that statutory undertakers cannot rely solely on inherited infrastructure issues to avoid liability for unauthorised discharges. This could lead to more stringent compliance and operational standards for sewerage undertakers to prevent pollution and protect water quality.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of considering the impact of injunctive relief on the regulatory framework. While the Court allowed the nuisance claim, it noted that whether injunctive relief would follow required careful consideration of its impact on the regulatory framework governing sewerage undertakers. This aspect of the judgment ensures a balanced approach, recognising both the rights of property owners and the practicalities of managing public sewerage systems.
In conclusion, the Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd case represents a pivotal moment in environmental and property law, reinforcing the rights of property owners to seek common law remedies for pollution and setting a precedent for future claims against statutory undertakers. The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in interpreting legislative frameworks in a manner that upholds fundamental property rights while balancing regulatory considerations.
For further information on this topic or on any other legal area, please contact John Szepietowski or Kay Stewart at Audley Chaucer Solicitors on 01372 303444 or email admin@audleychaucer.com or visit our Linkedin page.
Molly Ross
This information was correct as of September 2024
