Court rules water companies can be sued for dumping raw sewage

Water companies that dump raw sewage into Britain’s waterways can now be sued for damages and held accountable, following a landmark Supreme Court ruling.

Judges found that a private company that own canals, rivers or lakes can take legal action against any business that pollutes its water with untreated sewage.

Manchester Canal Company has been in a legal battle since 2018 with United Utilities about the latter’s ability to pump raw sewage into the canal without the permission of the owner.

The 36-mile Victorian waterway connects Manchester to the Mersey Estuary and the ruling is seen as a test case that opens a legal avenue to seek damages from sewage companies.

United Utilities provides water and sewage facilities to seven million customers in the north-west of England and is one of 10 such private companies in England and Wales.

The companies were put in charge of sewage in a 1989 privatisation by Margaret Thatcher’s government and protected from legal action by the Water Industry Act 1991.

‘Allowed to pollute’

In 2021, the High Court held that the act meant the company was allowed to “pollute the canal without the consent of the Canal Company and free of charge” unless the discharges were proved to be deliberate or negligent.

But the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the law only allows the water company to pump treated waste and excess surface water – and does not cover raw sewage.

“The 1991 Act does not authorise sewerage undertakers to cause a nuisance or to trespass by discharging untreated effluent into watercourses,” the judges wrote in their ruling.

“[The Act] gave sewerage undertakers authority to discharge treated effluent from existing sewers and outfalls into watercourses.

“Nothing in the relevant sections… authorises a sewerage undertaker to use a sewer, drain or outfall to convey foul water into a watercourse. The sewerage undertakers therefore do not have statutory authority to discharge untreated sewage into watercourses.”

The ruling added “the discharge of untreated effluent into watercourses” is not an “inevitable consequence” of the water company’s responsibilities.

“The discharge of polluting effluent could be avoided by means of investment in improved infrastructure and better treatment processes,” the judges continued.

Fundamental right to sue

In the joint ruling, Lord Reed and Lord Hodges said the owners of waterways had “fundamental common law rights” to sue for damages, whether sewage discharges were deliberate or negligent or not.

The two Supreme Court judges said: “This appeal raises the question whether the owners of watercourses...or bodies of water can bring actions in nuisance or trespass in the event that the water is polluted by discharges of foul water from the infrastructure of statutory sewerage undertakers, in the absence of negligence or deliberate misconduct.

“We would allow the canal company’s appeal,” they concluded.

Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose and Lord Richards agreed with the unanimous ruling.

A spokesman for Peel Ports Group and the Manchester Ship Canal Company said: “We are pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision, which concludes that a watercourse owner does have the right to bring legal action against a water company that discharges pollution into its watercourse.”

United Utilities was approached for comment.