The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd (Appellant) v United Utilities Water Ltd
The UK Supreme Court ruling in The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd (Appellant) v United Utilities Water Ltd (Respondent) on the 2nd July 2024 means that the Manchester Ship Canal can now bring private law claims against their local water provider for unauthorised discharges of sewage. This decision overturned the High Court and the Court of Appeal’s previous rulings which stated that claims could not be brought against water utility companies due to the Water Industry Act 1991, under Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government that privatised the sector.
The highest court in the land was asked to put an end to this long-running legal battle between United Utilities and Manchester Ship Canal by deciding whether the owner of the canal can bring a claim over nuisance and trespass when the canal become polluted by discharges of foul water. Despite United Utilities winning twice before in the lower courts, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed Manchester Ship Canal’s appeal in this landmark judgment which determines that nothing in the 1991 precludes a company from bringing this type of claim. This is particularly significant as it opens up other companies to pursue similar litigation in the future.
Data collected by the UK Government found that United Utilities polluted more than any other water company in 2023. In May of this year, United Utilities reported that their revenue had rose by 8.1% due to higher customer bills leading to increased revenue and operating profits. In Lord Reed’s and Lord Hodge’s joint judgment, they said that the Manchester Ship Canal Company– and all owners of waterways, have ‘fundamental common law rights’ to seek redress in the courts and sue for damages, irrespective of whether the sewage discharges were deliberate or negligent in nature. The court found the sewage discharges negligent and could have been avoided had United Utilities invested in improving their infrastructure and treatment processes.
The ruling has of course, wider implications. The ruling has opened the gates to potentially thousands of claims from fishing clubs to swimmers using polluted rivers and lakes. Emma Montlake, the joint executive director of the Environmental Law Foundation stated that the ruling is ‘a game changer for communities up and down the land.’ Jennine Walker from the Good Law Project stated that the landmark ruling should ‘empower people and businesses to use the courts to challenge industrial-scale polluters’ who have for far too long put profits over protecting the environment. It remains to be seen if the recent ruling will prompt a deluge of legal action from people affected by pollution waterways.
This article was written by Phoebe-Jean Grainger-Williams, you can contact Phoebe-Jean via the following email: [email protected]