Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 64 (7th February, 2002)

Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 64 (7th February, 2002)

The statutory regime under the Water Industry Act 1991 provides the exclusive means of enforcing the general drainage duty against sewerage undertakers. No private law claim in nuisance, negligence, Rylands v Fletcher, or for breach of statutory duty lies for non-feasance absent an enforcement order. However, Thames’ failure to prevent flooding after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force constituted a breach of Mr Marcic’s rights under Article 8 and Protocol 1, Article 1, entitling him to damages for that period only.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 64
Parties
Respondent/appellant: Peter Marcic; Appellant/respondent: Thames Water Utilities Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Cross Appeals From Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
Appeal by Thames Water Utilities Limited allowed in part; cross-appeal by Mr Marcic dismissed.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Negligence, Rylands V Fletcher Liability, Breach of Statutory Duty, Human Rights Act 1998, Water Industry Act 1991, Statutory Authority, Remedies for Flooding, Enforcement of Statutory Duties
Tort Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Statutory Interpretation Nuisance Negligence Rylands V Fletcher Liability Breach of Statutory Duty +5 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Marcic

Respondent/appellant

Thames Water Utilities Limited

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Cross Appeals From Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Thames Water Utilities Limited is liable in nuisance, negligence, Rylands v Fletcher, or breach of statutory duty for flooding of Mr Marcic’s property
  2. 2 Whether the statutory regime under the Water Industry Act 1991 excludes common law remedies for non-feasance by a sewerage undertaker
  3. 3 Whether Thames breached Mr Marcic’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8 and Protocol 1, Article 1)

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory regime under the Water Industry Act 1991 provides the exclusive means of enforcing the general drainage duty against sewerage undertakers. No private law claim in nuisance, negligence, Rylands v Fletcher, or for breach of statutory duty lies for non-feasance absent an enforcement order. However, Thames’ failure to prevent flooding after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force constituted a breach of Mr Marcic’s rights under Article 8 and Protocol 1, Article 1, entitling him to damages for that period only.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Thames Water Utilities Limited allowed in part; cross-appeal by Mr Marcic dismissed.

Orders

  • Mr Marcic’s claims in nuisance, negligence, Rylands v Fletcher, and breach of statutory duty dismissed.
  • Damages awarded to Mr Marcic for breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 from 2 October 2000 onwards, assessed by reference to the diminution in value of his property.