The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food And Rural Affairs & Anor [2022] EWHC 3282 (Admin) (19 December 2022)

The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food And Rural Affairs & Anor [2022] EWHC 3282 (Admin) (19 December 2022)

The Inspector and Secretary of State did not err in law by refusing to include the discharge proviso in the CPO. The statutory framework distinguishes between express and implied rights to discharge, and Parliament has not extended the protective provisions to rights granted under section 155 WIA. The Inspector was entitled to rely on the regulatory regime provided by the Environment Agency, the inquiry process, and the availability of compensation. The decision to confirm the CPO without the discharge proviso was justified by a compelling case in the public interest and did not unlawfully interfere with the Claimant's rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3282 (Admin)
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 of Compulsory Purchase Order Confirmation / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Orders, Water Industry Act 1991, Environmental Permitting, Landowner Protections, Judicial Review Standards, Human Rights Balancing, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Law Environmental Law Compulsory Purchase Compulsory Purchase Orders Water Industry Act 1991 Environmental Permitting +4 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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 of Compulsory Purchase Order Confirmation / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State and Inspector erred in law by refusing to include protective provisions (the 'discharge proviso') in the compulsory purchase order for United Utilities' right to discharge into the Manchester Ship Canal.
  2. 2 Whether the decision sufficiently justified interference with the Claimant's rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Secretary of State did not err in law by refusing to include the discharge proviso in the CPO. The statutory framework distinguishes between express and implied rights to discharge, and Parliament has not extended the protective provisions to rights granted under section 155 WIA. The Inspector was entitled to rely on the regulatory regime provided by the Environment Agency, the inquiry process, and the availability of compensation. The decision to confirm the CPO without the discharge proviso was justified by a compelling case in the public interest and did not unlawfully interfere with the Claimant's rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.
  • The decision of the Secretary of State to confirm the compulsory purchase order stands.