Ruling paves manner for companies and public to sue water companies over sewage

Water corporations might face a spate of authorized challenges by folks and companies affected by sewage air pollution after a ruling that United Utilities could possibly be sued by a non-public firm for injury attributable to the dumping of human waste.

Attorneys stated it was a “watershed second” because the courts had beforehand dominated that penalties for water corporations had been a matter for the regulator, and corporations couldn’t sue companies for injury precipitated to their property by sewage air pollution.

The Manchester Ship Canal Firm, which has been attempting since 2010 to convey a declare towards United Utilities, has alleged that discharges from 121 sewage outfalls inside its networks constituted a trespass.

In February 2012, the excessive court docket dominated in favour of United Utilities, however this was later overturned by the court docket of enchantment, after which restored by the supreme court docket in 2014. Then, in March 2021, the excessive court docket dominated it was the function of regulators and never the courts to deal with issues attributable to sewage dumping.

The Environmental Regulation Basis, supported by the Good Regulation Mission, challenged this resolution, arguing that there needs to be authorized choices for folks straight affected by sewage air pollution. However the court docket of enchantment discovered towards them and stated the one possibility for recourse in points attributable to air pollution was via the regulator, and that the regulation didn’t enable folks or corporations straight affected to convey personal claims towards the water corporations.

The case then went to the supreme court docket, which overturned the earlier rulings and located that United Utilities will be held to account for injury attributable to discharges.

The court docket stated the 1991 Water Trade Act doesn’t stop the corporate from bringing a declare for nuisance or trespass when a canal is polluted by sewage discharges from United Utilities’ sewers, even when there was no deliberate misconduct or negligence.

Lord Reed and Lord Hodge stated: “The supreme court docket unanimously permits the canal firm’s enchantment. It holds that the 1991 act doesn’t stop the canal firm from bringing a declare in nuisance or trespass when the canal is polluted by discharges of foul water from United Utilities’ outfalls, even when there was no negligence or deliberate misconduct.”

The Good Regulation Mission’s interim head of authorized, Jennine Walker, stated: “This can be a sensational victory. It provides us stronger authorized instruments to show the tide on the sewage scandal and maintain water corporations to account, after repeated failures from our toothless and underfunded regulators.”

A United Utilities spokesperson stated: “We’re contemplating the implications of the supreme court docket’s ruling and the clarification of the circumstances by which personal house owners might convey proceedings in respect of discharges. We perceive and share folks’s considerations concerning the want for change and we now have already made an early begin on an formidable proposed £3bn programme to enhance over 400 storm overflows throughout the north-west which might lower spills by 60% over the last decade to 2030. These proposals type a part of our marketing strategy, which is at the moment into consideration as a part of Ofwat’s value evaluate course of.”