Sewage pollution litigation after Manchester Ship Canal

We are now 19 months on from the historic Manchester Ship UKSC decision on 2 July 2024 (The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd [2024] UKSC 22) which held that water companies in England and Wales could be held liable for infringing private rights via sewage pollution. 

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 when 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.

Against this backdrop, how has the Supreme Court’s reasoning begun to shape litigation strategy, regulatory boundaries and access to redress in practice

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 brought 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 

This claim was brought in the County Court by Jo Bateman, an Exmouth wild swimmer and campaigner, against South West Water prior to the  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.