Key Facts
- •The Manchester Ship Canal Company (Canal Company) appealed a decision that barred them from bringing actions in nuisance or trespass against United Utilities Water (United Utilities) for polluting discharges from United Utilities' sewerage infrastructure.
- •United Utilities' system discharges foul water into the canal when its hydraulic capacity is exceeded, a design feature.
- •The central issue is whether the Water Industry Act 1991 (1991 Act) prevents common law actions for pollution by sewerage undertakers absent negligence or deliberate misconduct.
- •The Environmental Law Foundation intervened due to the case's broader implications for watercourse owners.
Legal Principles
The tort of private nuisance is committed where the defendant's activity unduly interferes with the claimant's land use and enjoyment.
Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd [2023] UKSC 16
Bodies exercising statutory powers are liable for torts unless statute grants immunity.
Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863)
Statutes are not construed as depriving individuals of rights unless expressly stated or necessarily implied; the principle of legality applies.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115
Statutory authority confers immunity from nuisance only if the nuisance is the inevitable result of the authorised activity.
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 1001
Statutory controls over pollution do not diminish private nuisance rights unless expressly or impliedly stated.
Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The 1991 Act does not bar common law claims (nuisance or trespass) against sewerage undertakers for unauthorised polluting discharges into watercourses, even if preventing the nuisance requires capital expenditure. Section 18(8) preserves common law remedies unless the statutory contravention is an essential ingredient of the claim. In this case, United Utilities caused or adopted the nuisance by operating a system designed to discharge foul water when overloaded; their liability doesn't depend on failure to take reasonable steps (Sedleigh-Denfield). While the court may exercise discretion in granting injunctions to avoid disrupting the statutory funding scheme, damages are a viable remedy.