NUISANCE CLAIM HELD TO BEINCONSISTENT WITH STATUTE

Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2003] UKHL 66; [2003] 3 WLR 1603

The House of Lords in Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2003] UKHL 66; [2003] 3 WLR 1603, has allowed an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (on which see our March 2002 issue, pp.1–6) and held that the claimant did not have an action in nuisance against the defendants, nor had his human rights been violated. The crucial factor in persuading their Lordships to conclude that the claimant had no right of action in nuisance was that such a right would have been inconsistent with the statutory provisions regulating the water industry, in particular s94(4) of the Water Industry Act 1991. Further, it was held that the Human Rights Act 1998 did not provide absolute protection for the claimant in the enjoyment of his home. Rather, the court had to engage in a balancing act in order to consider the respective interests of the claimant and the wider public. When that balancing act was conducted it was found that the claimant’s human rights had not been violated and that the statutory scheme set up by the 1991 Act was compatible with the claimant’s human rights.