The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor

The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor

The Inspector and Secretary of State did not err in law by refusing to include the discharge proviso in the CPO. The Inspector's assessment was a lawful exercise of discretion, balancing the public interest, the regulatory regime, and the evidence. The CPO process and environmental regulation provide sufficient protection, and the absence of the discharge proviso does not render the interference with MSCC's property rights disproportionate under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR. The claim for judicial review/statutory challenge is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Second Defendant: United Utilities Water Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Challenge / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Orders, Water Industry Act 1991, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Environmental Permitting, Statutory Undertaker Rights, Landowner Protections
Administrative Law Compulsory Purchase Human Rights Law Environmental Law Compulsory Purchase Orders Water Industry Act 1991 Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Environmental Permitting +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

First Defendant

United Utilities Water Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Challenge / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State and/or Inspector erred in law by not including protective provisions (the 'discharge proviso') in the Compulsory Purchase Order under section 155 Water Industry Act 1991.
  2. 2 Whether the confirmation of the CPO without the discharge proviso unjustifiably interfered with the Claimant's rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Secretary of State did not err in law by refusing to include the discharge proviso in the CPO. The Inspector's assessment was a lawful exercise of discretion, balancing the public interest, the regulatory regime, and the evidence. The CPO process and environmental regulation provide sufficient protection, and the absence of the discharge proviso does not render the interference with MSCC's property rights disproportionate under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR. The claim for judicial review/statutory challenge is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed