Private Law, Statutory Powers and Environmental Disputes: <i>Manchester Ship Canal Company v United Utilities (No 2)</i>

Abstract In Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd (No 2) the UK Supreme Court unanimously held that the Water Industry Act 1991 did not prevent claims being brought in trespass or nuisance against United Utilities for foul water discharges into the Manchester Ship Canal. The judgment is significant because it opens the door to similar claims being brought against sewerage undertakers, which many had thought were statutorily blocked off following the House of Lords’ decision in Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd. While the result of the decision has understandably been welcomed by environmental groups, this analysis argues that the Supreme Court’s reasoning reveals a more complex picture. In particular, the court’s refusal to overrule Marcic and the expansive way the court conceives of the private rights of property holders are matters for concern for anyone looking to private law as a way of remedying environmental harms.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Environmental Law
Published
2024-12-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqae029
Primary Topic
International Arbitration and Investment Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Private Law, Statutory Powers and Environmental Disputes: Manchester Ship Canal Company v United Utilities (No 2)

Jeevan Hariharan
Journal of Environmental Law
International Arbitration and Investment Law
article

Private Law, Statutory Powers and Environmental Disputes: Manchester Ship Canal Company v United Utilities (No 2)

Jeevan Hariharan
article en

Abstract

Abstract In Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd (No 2) the UK Supreme Court unanimously held that the Water Industry Act 1991 did not prevent claims being brought in trespass or nuisance against United Utilities for foul water discharges into the Manchester Ship Canal. The judgment is significant because it opens the door to similar claims being brought against sewerage undertakers, which many had thought were statutorily blocked off following the House of Lords’ decision in Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd. While the result of the decision has understandably been welcomed by environmental groups, this analysis argues that the Supreme Court’s reasoning reveals a more complex picture. In particular, the court’s refusal to overrule Marcic and the expansive way the court conceives of the private rights of property holders are matters for concern for anyone looking to private law as a way of remedying environmental harms.

Journal of Environmental LawVol. 37(1)
Public Utilities Board (SG), Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Clean water and sanitation
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
International Arbitration and Investment Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.