A Supreme Court case about a water company that has discharged “foul” water into the Manchester Ship Canal has major implications for all water utilities and sewerage companies, a lawyer told the court today.
While The Manchester Ship Canal Company v United Utilities Ltd long predates the current debate about sewerage companies’ discharges, the issues have direct relevance, Thomas de la Mare KC, representing the Manchester Ship Canal Company (MSCC), told the court today.
The case involves a long-running dispute between MSCC, which owns the canal, and United Utilities (UU) which provides water and wastewater services for the North West of England.
MSCC wants to bring a private law case for nuisance or trespass against UU over unauthorised discharges of foul and untreated water into the canal. UU argues that MSCC cannot bring the claim because breaches should be dealt with using a statutory enforcement mechanism set up by the Water Industry Act of 1991.
So far, both the High Court and Court of Appeal have backed UU.
The case is about “the interface between statue and common law rights”, de la Mare told the court.
He said: “It is about how far the common law is swallowed up by a statutory regime.”
De la Mare said that principles established in the case “will apply to every sewerage undertakers discharge of sewage into every river, canal, lake and pond in England and Wales, be it the Manchester Ship Canal, Lake Windermere, the rivers Test to Itching, the Wye or the Trent”.
He added that the case had direct relevance to the “escalating problem” of sewage discharges into “rivers and other waters, which is of course a current daily staple of the news”.
“In truth, this case probably boils down to whether and when water companies are entitled, under the scheme of the Act, to an extensive implied immunity to pay compensation to those whose property rights they damage when they discharge foul water,” he said.
The case is being heard today and tomorrow at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre. While the Supreme Court has sat in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast in the past, this is the first time the court has sat outside of one of the UK’s four capital cities.
Lawyers for UU will present their arguments later in the hearing.
The case is being heard by Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose and Lord Richards.
To send feedback, e-mail newsdesk@eg.co.uk or tweet @EGPropertyNews
