The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd [2016] EWHC 259 (Ch) (15 February 2016)

The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd [2016] EWHC 259 (Ch) (15 February 2016)

Permission to amend was granted only for claims relating to outfalls alleged to have been constructed on or after 1 December 1991 (Class 1), as these amendments were sufficiently particularised and did not significantly expand the scope of proceedings or cause undue prejudice. Permission was refused for other...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 259 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited; Defendant: United Utilities Water Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Supreme Court Remittal; Application to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Permission to amend granted in part; claim dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Statutory Rights of Discharge, Trespass, Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods, Water Industry Regulation
Property Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Statutory Rights of Discharge Trespass Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Periods Water Industry Regulation

Source-derived case record

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited

Claimant

United Utilities Water Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Supreme Court Remittal; Application to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend its particulars of claim to introduce new categories of alleged trespass and statutory limitation on discharge rights
  2. 2 Whether the amendments are time-barred or procedurally inappropriate due to lateness
  3. 3 Whether United Utilities' statutory rights of discharge are limited by subsequent changes in sewer connections or use

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend was granted only for claims relating to outfalls alleged to have been constructed on or after 1 December 1991 (Class 1), as these amendments were sufficiently particularised and did not significantly expand the scope of proceedings or cause undue prejudice. Permission was refused for other proposed amendments (Classes 2, 3, 4) due to lateness, lack of particularisation, and the disproportionate burden they would impose on the defendant. The amendments did not raise limitation issues for Class 1.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend granted in part; claim dismissed in part

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend particulars of claim for Class 1 outfalls (constructed on or after 1 December 1991)
  • Permission refused for amendments relating to Classes 2, 3, and 4