Marcic v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2001] EWHC Technology 421 (14th May, 2001)

Marcic v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2001] EWHC Technology 421 (14th May, 2001)

The defendant is not liable in nuisance, negligence, or breach of statutory duty for failing to carry out works necessary to prevent flooding, as the statutory duty under Water Industry Act 1991 does not confer a private right of action absent an enforcement order, and established case law grants immunity for non-feasance. The Human Rights Act 1998 does not provide a remedy in these circumstances.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Technology 421
Parties
Claimant: Peter Marcic; Defendant: Thames Water Utilities Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Statutory Duty, Rylands V. Fletcher, Human Rights Act 1998, Water Industry Act 1991, Negligence, Adoption of Nuisance, Statutory Authority
Tort Statutory Interpretation Human Rights Nuisance Statutory Duty Rylands V. Fletcher Human Rights Act 1998 Water Industry Act 1991 +3 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 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Marcic

Claimant

Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is Thames Water Utilities Ltd. liable in nuisance for flooding caused by inadequate sewerage systems?
  2. 2 Does the statutory duty under Water Industry Act 1991 create a private right of action for failure to effectually drain?
  3. 3 Does the Human Rights Act 1998 provide a remedy for the claimant's loss?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is not liable in nuisance, negligence, or breach of statutory duty for failing to carry out works necessary to prevent flooding, as the statutory duty under Water Industry Act 1991 does not confer a private right of action absent an enforcement order, and established case law grants immunity for non-feasance. The Human Rights Act 1998 does not provide a remedy in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed