Water pollution litigation after Manchester Ship Canal ruling

Limiting the application of the past authority of Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd & Ors [2003] UKHL 66, the UK’s highest court held that water companies which cause loss and damage to private individuals cannot rely on statutory or regulatory permissions to shield themselves from liability, where investment in the sewage network is not an essential ingredient of the claim.

This ruling was delivered during a time where sewage pollution in the UK and the damage to communities and the environment has been the subject of national campaigns, Parliamentary debates and a government inquiry. In the past few years, legal claims relating to sewage pollution have been brought in the county courts, the high court, and competition appeal tribunal.

Since the judgment, where are we now?

River Wye, Lugg and Usk - 2025 saw the issue of the High Court claim by members of the river Wye, Lugg and Usk community in part relating to sewage pollution of the region, brought against the water company Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water. This group claim, formally served on the sewage company in October 2025, has been joined by more than 4,000 community members and local businesses who allege that the sewage pollution of the River Wye, Lugg and Usk has materially contributed to: decreased property prices, tourism business revenue, hobbies such as fishing and water sports, and disruption of planning permission in the Lugg region. Data released by the Environment Agency revealed that at least 12,500 hours' worth of sewage across 45 locations in England alone was spilled into the rivers Wye and Lugg, and their tributaries, by Welsh Water from overflow incidents in 2024. This group claim is brough in private and public nuisance, as well as for breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other torts. The members of the Wye, Lugg and Usk community are likely to be the first to reach High Court for determination of liability for the state of UK waters in the new legal landscape. Pleadings closing and a Case Management Conference are projected for 2026.

2025 also saw multiple county court proceedings involving sewage companies: including one claim brought against a sewage company for alleged sewage pollution in Exmouth, and two claims by sewage companies defended as part of the national movement withholding sewage bills to protest alleged untreated wastewater discharges.

• Bateman v South West Water – Brought in the County Court by Jo Bateman, an Exmouth wild swimmer and campaigner, against South West Water prior to the Manchester Ship Canal Judgment. In 2024, Exmouth beach was reported to be the 24th most sewage polluted bathing area of the more than 550 in England and Wales: having allegedly suffered 2,279 hours (3.17 months) duration of spills in 2024. However, this year, the County Court ordered that the Defendants’ application to transfer the claim to the High Court should succeed, despite the submissions from the local campaigner that the costs of litigating her claim in the High Court as a single unfunded claimant against a large company would effectively stop her from accessing justice. Bateman’s claim has been brought in public nuisance, claiming for the reduction of her ability to wild swim in the known bathing area.
• Severn Trent Water v Kirby and South East Water v Stanley – Both Kirby and Stanley, local anti-pollution campaigners in the Shrewsbury and Whitstable Bay respectively, resisted paying the wastewater component of their sewage bills in protest against alleged local pollution. Proceedings were issued against both in the county courts by the water company, seeing to recover unpaid bills. Kirby settled the claim against her after Severn Trent Water instructed a large national law firm to pursue the claim against her, of the kind that usually charges hundreds of pounds per hour for their work. The Environment Agency recorded 62,085 sewage spills by Severn Trent Water in 2024, with a total duration of 454,155 hours. Severn Trent ranked the second worst in England for sewage spills, with only South West Water performing more badly. Stanley, on the other hand, made it to county court only to be ordered to pay the outstanding bill on the basis that bills are owed pursuant to statute, and the common law does not create a right to withhold payment on the basis of alleged pollution in the manner argued.

Meanwhile, the claim sought to be brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal last year, alleging that water company environmental performance by six water companies equated to an overcharge of consumers, was not given permission to proceed on the basis that water company bill price reviews are a regulatory process not subject to court review. The claimants have appealed the judgment, which will likely be heard in 2026.

Following the efforts of those up and down the country turning to the courts to assert the rights protected by the Manchester Ship Canal judgment against water companies for alleged pollution, many other communities have publicised consideration of group legal actions. More than 1,300 people have joined a group claim being prepared relating to the alleged pollution of Exmouth and the Exe Estuary area by South West Water. Meanwhile, the community surrounding Lake Windermere has announced its intention to explore a legal claim against United Utilities, with Environment Agency modelling suggesting that sewage pollution was responsible for around 52% of the phosphorus pollution of the lake’s north basin. As the River Wye pollution claim proceeds through the High Court, communities across England and Wales will be watching closely.

This blog post first appeared in Solicitors Journal on 23 January 2026