August 3rd, 2026
Environmental Law Foundation permitted to continue major Supreme Court appeal after original parties settle
The Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) has been granted permission to take over the conduct of a major Supreme Court appeal with far-reaching implications for environmental accountability and the ability of those affected by environmental harm to seek legal redress.
The unusual decision follows an out-of-court settlement between two of the three principal parties to the appeal, the Manchester Ship Canal Company and United Utilities, shortly before the case was due to be heard by the Supreme Court on 9 and 10 June 2026.
ELF and the Canal & River Trust (CRT), both interveners in the case, declined to consent to the appeal being withdrawn because of the wider public-interest issues at stake. ELF and CRT subsequently sought permission to take over conduct of the appeal.
The Supreme Court has now granted ELF and CRT permission to do so, meaning that important questions about the relationship between Government-granted compulsory powers and private legal rights can still be considered by the UK’s highest court.
Why this case matters
At the heart of the case is an important question: if future pollution or environmental harm occurs, can those affected take direct legal action — or can that right be limited where statutory compulsory powers are involved?
The question matters because communities affected by pollution are often heavily dependent on regulators to investigate, enforce environmental law and hold powerful actors to account. Where regulatory action is delayed, limited or absent, private legal claims can provide another vital route to justice.
The case follows a landmark 2024 Supreme Court judgment involving the same original parties.
That earlier case arose from repeated discharges of foul water from United Utilities’ sewerage infrastructure into the Manchester Ship Canal. United Utilities argued that Parliament had established a statutory regulatory system for the water industry that restricted the availability of private legal claims.
In July 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected that position. It confirmed that the Water Industry Act 1991 did not prevent those with relevant legal rights from bringing private claims in nuisance and trespass over polluting sewage discharges. ELF intervened in the case to bring a wider public-interest perspective, drawing on its experience of supporting communities across the UK facing pollution and other forms of environmental harm.
The judgment marked an important step forward for environmental accountability because it confirmed that those affected by pollution should not always be forced to rely solely on regulators to act. It opened an important route to direct legal redress and is already influencing a new generation of environmental litigation.
A new case — and a new question
The current case is legally different, but raises an important related question about how secure those private legal rights are in practice.
The dispute arose after United Utilities secured compulsory powers from Government in connection with major infrastructure works in Greater Manchester. Manchester Ship Canal Company argued that those powers should not undermine its ability to bring future private legal claims if pollution or other actionable harm occurred.
The lower courts ruled against Manchester Ship Canal Company. ELF believes the resulting Court of Appeal judgment raises serious concerns about whether longstanding routes to legal redress can, in practice, be weakened when statutory compulsory powers have been granted.
The case was due to be heard by the Supreme Court in June 2026, with ELF and CRT having been granted permission to participate as interveners.
Then, shortly before the hearing, Manchester Ship Canal Company and United Utilities reached a private settlement and Manchester Ship Canal sought to withdraw its appeal.
ELF and the CRT declined to consent to the withdrawal of the appeal simply, taking the view that the issues at stake extended beyond the private interests of the original parties.
The Supreme Court has now granted ELF and the CRT to take over the conduct of the appeal.
Robin Pierro, CEO of the Environmental Law Foundation, said:
“When the original parties settled, this case could simply have disappeared despite raising questions with consequences far beyond either party. We did not believe that was right. ELF works with hundreds of communities facing environmental harm every year, and we know how vital meaningful routes to accountability are when regulatory action fails to deliver. We are delighted that these important questions will now be heard.”
What happens next
The Supreme Court has issued a draft order refusing Manchester Ship Canal Company’s application to withdraw the appeal and granting permission for the Environmental Law Foundation and the Canal & River Trust to take conduct of the case. The appeal will be listed for a 1.5-day hearing before a panel of five Supreme Court Justices.
ELF and CRT will jointly present the appeal, represented by Richard Wald KC and Monty Fynn of 39 Essex Chambers together with Nicholas Ostrowski and Alex Crichton-Miller of 6 Pump Court, instructed by Leigh Day Solicitors.
–ENDS–
Notes to editors
About the Environmental Law Foundation
The Environmental Law Foundation is a UK charity that helps communities use the law to challenge environmental harm. ELF supports hundreds of communities each year facing issues including pollution, harmful development, habitat destruction and threats to rivers and green spaces. ELF also works to strengthen the environmental ecosystem and drive systemic change to environmental law, policy and practice.
Press contact: Robin Pierro, CEO, robin@elflaw.org