Water 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.

A balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with. It is impossible to give any precise or universal formula, but it may broadly be said that a useful test is perhaps what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or more correctly in a particular society.

I conclude that every abstraction of water by the plaintiff from Mill Pond after 30th June 1965 was illegal. It follows, in my judgment, that the plaintiff cannot rely on any abstraction of water carried out after 30th June 1965 in order to establish an easement by prescription. The court will not recognise an easement established by illegal activity. The 1963 Act, however, does not contain any provision which destroys an easement already acquired.

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.

Indeed, I would include the simple preposition "for" as one of the possible meanings. Thus, even if perchance the ultimately correct analysis of the agreement were to be found not in agency, but, for instance, in the concept of assignment (if, indeed, the statutory claims of water undertakers on their customers can be assigned), it would seem to me that the arrangements still amounted to a collection and recovery of water charges "on behalf of" the water undertaker.

The expression is defined in section 189 of the Act to refer to a sewer for the time being vested in a sewerage undertaker, "whether vested in that undertaker by virtue of a scheme under Schedule 2 or 5 to this Act or under section 153 above or otherwise". As Mr Karas observed, the definition assumes that sewers can have vested pursuant to transfer schemes (under schedule 2) rather than section 153.