Sewage in UK Law

In my view the cause of action in nuisance asserted by Mr Marcic is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Mr Marcic's claim is expressed in various ways but in practical terms it always comes down to this: Thames Water ought to build more sewers. This is the only way Thames Water can prevent sewer flooding of Mr Marcic's property. This is the only way because it is not suggested that Thames Water failed to operate its existing sewage system properly by not cleaning or maintaining it.

The difficulty I have with this line of argument is that it ignores the statutory limitations on the enforcement of sewerage undertakers' drainage obligations.

"Upon trade premises one would expect there to be a source of effluent that is not related to the trading or industrial processes carried on there. The establishment will have its domestic side as well as its truly business side. The words 'wholly or in part produced in the course of any trade' are almost wide enough to include anything which comes from the premises used by people working there. 'In the course of is a phrase often considered by lawyers and has been shown to have a wide embrace.

However, to my mind there is an important distinction between the present case and Lingke. For the moment, I set to one side the claims based on the blocking of the pipe and I limit my consideration to the claim based on the refusal to permit connection. In Lingke the alternative cause of action referred to was a free-standing cause of action in nuisance which was in no sense dependent on any provision of the statute.

The fallacy, as it seems to me, lies in the underlying (but unspoken) premise that Parliament must have intended that sewerage undertakers should have facilities to discharge (which, plainly, they do require in order to carry out their functions) without paying for those facilities.

Under the concluding words of section 18(8) any common law claim will lie which does not involve the averment of violation of the Act. Thames have not sought to establish that the flooding of Mr Marcic's property was the inevitable consequence of the exercise of their statutory duties or powers so that they have not been negligent in the special meaning of that word in Allen. As that case makes plain, the burden of establishing this defence falls on Thames.