Roberts v Severn Trent Water Limited & Severn Trent PLC & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 222 (05 March 2026)

Roberts v Severn Trent Water Limited & Severn Trent PLC & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 222 (05 March 2026)

The Court of Appeal held that Professor Roberts's claims for abuse of dominant position were barred by section 18(8) of the Water Industry Act 1991 because the existence and breach of the duty to report accurate information to Ofwat was an essential ingredient of the cause of action. The remedies sought were only available by virtue of the acts constituting a contravention of the conditions of appointment, and not otherwise. The claim could not be established without relying on the breach of the regulatory regime, and thus section 18(8) precluded the claims.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 222
Parties
Appellant / Proposed Class Representative: Professor Carolyn Roberts; Respondents / Proposed Defendants: Severn Trent Water Limited & Severn Trent PLC; Respondents / Proposed Defendants: United Utilities Water Limited & United Utilities Group PLC; Respondents / Proposed Defendants: Yorkshire Water Services Limited & Kelda Holdings Limited; Respondents / Proposed Defendants: Northumbrian Water Limited & Northumbrian Water Group Limited; Respondents / Proposed Defendants: Anglian Water Services Limited & Anglian Water Group Limited; Respondents / Proposed Defendants: Thames Water Utilities Limited & Kemble Water Holdings Limited; Intervener: The Water Services Regulatory Authority (Ofwat)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal (cat) / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Grant Collective Proceedings Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Collective Proceedings Order, Water Industry Regulation, Section 18(8) Water Industry Act 1991, Section 47 B Competition Act 1998, Misleading a Regulator, Price Control Mechanisms

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor Carolyn Roberts

Appellant / Proposed Class Representative

Severn Trent Water Limited & Severn Trent PLC

Respondents / Proposed Defendants

United Utilities Water Limited & United Utilities Group PLC

Respondents / Proposed Defendants

Yorkshire Water Services Limited & Kelda Holdings Limited

Respondents / Proposed Defendants

Northumbrian Water Limited & Northumbrian Water Group Limited

Respondents / Proposed Defendants

Anglian Water Services Limited & Anglian Water Group Limited

Respondents / Proposed Defendants

Thames Water Utilities Limited & Kemble Water Holdings Limited

Respondents / Proposed Defendants

The Water Services Regulatory Authority (Ofwat)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal (cat) / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Grant Collective Proceedings Order

  1. 1 Whether section 18(8) of the Water Industry Act 1991 bars collective proceedings for abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act 1998 where the alleged abuse is misleading the regulator by under-reporting pollution incidents.
  2. 2 Whether the claim for damages for overcharging consumers is only available by virtue of the acts constituting a contravention of a condition of appointment under the WIA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Professor Roberts's claims for abuse of dominant position were barred by section 18(8) of the Water Industry Act 1991 because the existence and breach of the duty to report accurate information to Ofwat was an essential ingredient of the cause of action. The remedies sought were only available by virtue of the acts constituting a contravention of the conditions of appointment, and not otherwise. The claim could not be established without relying on the breach of the regulatory regime, and thus section 18(8) precluded the claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The refusal of the Competition Appeal Tribunal to grant a Collective Proceedings Order is upheld.