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

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll