What constitutes nuisance when foul water escapes from overloaded sewers? Richard Buckley examines two cases, showing a change in water companies’ liability
- Considers the decision of the Supreme Court in Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd, and contrasts it with the decision of the House of Lords 20 years earlier in Marcic v Thames Water Utilities.
Should water companies, when acting as sewerage operators, be subject to the ordinary law of nuisance when foul water escapes from their land on to that of their neighbours? Or should they enjoy some special immunity from common law liability owing to their subjection to regulatory oversight, and to the enormous costs involved in repairing and rebuilding the sewage system? It is the historic inadequacies of that system which are usually the ultimate cause of the nuisance.
This question, with its undoubted topicality, has been the subject of major consideration by the highest court in two decisions, 20 years apart. In the more recent of the two, Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd
