The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited (Appellant) v Secretary of State For Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and another (Respondents)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0105

Parties

Appellant(s)

The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited

Respondent(s)

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

United Utilities Water Limited

Issue

Was the Secretary of State (“SSEFRA”) wrong to approve a compulsory purchase order in a form in which the rights authorised to be compulsorily acquired appear to include an unbounded private law right to discharge “water, soil and effluent” into a canal, even where the discharge occurs in such a way as to amount to a criminal offence and/or a nuisance?

Facts

The Appellant (“MSCCL”) is the owner, statutory undertaker and navigation authority of the Manchester Ship Canal (“the Canal”). The Second Respondent (“UUWL”) is the sewerage undertaker for north-west England. These proceedings relate to a decision by the First Respondent, SSEFRA, to confirm the United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Wastewater Treatment Works) Compulsory Purchase Order 2016 (“the CPO”), pursuant to which UUWL has been authorised compulsorily to acquire (inter alia) the right to discharge “water, soil and effluent” into the Canal from a new sewer outfall in Eccles, Greater Manchester (“the New Outfall”) by the creation of a new right. It is common ground that, if the scheme operates in the manner that it is supposed to, it will result in improvements to water quality in both Salteye Brook and the Canal. MSCCL’s concern in these proceedings is to seek to ensure that its position is appropriately protected in the event that things go wrong, such that the New Outfall discharges untreated or inadequately treated sewage into the Canal. MSCCL proposed a proviso which would have created a carve-out such that: (i) UUWL’s right to discharge would not extend to discharges which amount to a criminal offence and/or a nuisance; and (ii) MSCCL would in principle be able to bring a private law claim if such discharges occurred. By confirmation letter dated 14 October 2021, the SSEFRA determined that the proviso “was unnecessary because the discharge will be regulated by the Environment Agency. In addition, compensation is payable for any damage sustained by the Order Scheme”. MSSCL challenged SSEFRA’s decision by way of judicial review. The High Court dismissed MSCCL’s challenge, and the Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal. MSCCL now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

3 July 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top