header-logo header-logo

03 July 2024
Issue: 8078 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Nuisance
printer mail-detail

Sewage: waters most foul

Water companies can be sued for nuisance or trespass for dumping sewage regardless of whether there has been negligence or deliberate misconduct, the Supreme Court has held

Ruling in Manchester Ship Canal Company v United Utilities Water [2024] UKSC 22, seven justices unanimously held Manchester Ship can bring a private law claim against the water company.

Manchester Ship had disputed the water company’s right to dump foul water into the canal. The water company contended it could pollute the canal free of charge because the Water Industry Act 1991, which brought in water privatisation, barred Manchester Ship from bringing a private law claim in nuisance or trespass.

Giving the lead judgment, Lords Reed and Hodge said the starting point was to recognise ‘the owner of a watercourse, or a riparian owner, has a right of property in the watercourse’.

The argument that the 1991 Act deprives nuisance victims of the right of action at common law should be rejected for three reasons, Lords Reed and Hodge said. First, the 1991 Act is a consolidation statute and it is unlikely a statute of that nature made important changes to the law. Second, ‘The 1991 Act is detailed and elaborate. One would not expect that such a statute left an important change in the law to be a matter of implication.

‘The third and most important consideration is the principle of legality: that fundamental common law rights, such as rights of action to protect private property, are not taken to be abrogated by statute in the absence of express language or necessary implication.’

Emma Montlake, joint executive director, Environmental Law Foundation, which intervened in the case, said: ‘This was a “monster case” as characterised by lead counsel for the Manchester Ship Canal. Enormously complex, the outcome has the potential to be a game changer for communities up and down the land.’

Issue: 8078 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Nuisance
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll