The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd (Appellant) v United Utilities Water Ltd (Respondent) No 2

The case involves a dispute between the Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd (the Canal Company) and United Utilities Water Ltd (United Utilities) over the latter's discharge of foul water into the canal. The central issue is whether the Canal Company can bring actions in nuisance or trespass against United Utilities, given that the discharges are carried out under statutory powers and in the absence of negligence or deliberate misconduct. The appeal raises a broader question about the compatibility of such common law actions with the legislative scheme established by the Water Industry Act 1991.

The Supreme Court began by outlining the general principles of private nuisance, noting that the tort is committed when an activity or state of affairs for which the defendant is responsible unduly interferes with the use and enjoyment of the claimant's land. The court also discussed the principle of legality, which presumes that statutes do not intend to infringe fundamental rights unless expressly or by necessary implication. It highlighted that bodies exercising statutory powers are not immune from tortious liability unless expressly or impliedly granted immunity by statute. The court then reviewed the historical legislative framework governing sewerage and watercourses, showing a consistent statutory protection against the pollution of watercourses by sewage and a requirement for statutory authorisation to affect watercourses injuriously.

The court examined case law where statutory sewerage authorities were held liable for nuisances resulting from the discharge of sewage into watercourses. It noted that while statutory remedies existed for failures to perform duties under the legislation, common law actions could still lie for nuisances caused by the discharge of untreated sewage into watercourses, provided no statutory defence existed. The court concluded that the statutory provisions did not bar common law actions where the statutory authority did not authorise the pollution and where the statutory provisions did not expressly or impliedly deprive the owner of remedies available at common law.

The Supreme Court held that the Canal Company could bring actions in nuisance or trespass against United Utilities for the discharge of foul water into the canal, as the statutory provisions did not bar such actions and the discharges were not authorised by statute. The court allowed the Canal Company's appeal, finding that the statutory scheme did not preclude common law actions for nuisance or trespass where the discharges were not authorised and caused damage to the Canal Company's property.