The Competition Appeal Tribunal has rejected a case brought against six UK water companies in September 2024 for allegedly misleading regulators about the number of discharges of untreated sewage made into rivers, lakes, coastal areas, and other waterways causing damage to the environment.
In a written ruling published on Friday last week, the Competition Appeal Tribunal that the cases were excluded by the effect of the Water Industry Act 1991 – but they would otherwise have approved the cases.
Professor Carolyn Roberts was the Proposed Class Representative (PCR) in each action for millions of customers whichh brought separate but very similar collective proceedings against the companies.
If successful, the combined claims could have led to compensation payments worth £840.8 million in total as follows:
- Severn Trent Water Ltd and Severn Trent PLC- £322.5 million
- United Utilities Water Ltd and United Utilities Group PLC - £141 million
- Yorkshire Water Services Ltd and Kelda Holdings Ltd- £150.7 million
- Northumbrian Water Ltd and Northumbrian Water Group Ltd- £35.2 million
- Anglian Water Services Ltd and Anglian Water Group Ltd - £32.3 million
- Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Kemble Water Holdings Ltd - £159.1 million
As the PCR, Professor Roberts had contended that the water companies had committed, and continue to commit, abuses of a dominant position, in breach of section 18 of the Competition Act 1998, in providing misleading information to the relevant regulatory bodies, the Environment Agency and Ofwat. Professor Roberts had alleged that the effect of this conduct has been to cause Ofwat to allow the companies to charge customers higher prices for sewerage services than they would otherwise have been permitted to charge.
The detailed 38 page Judgement issued by the Tribunal concludes:
"For the reasons set out above:
(a) we find that these claims for abuse of dominance in breach of the Chapter II prohibition are excluded by s. 18(8) WIA; but
(b) if not so excluded, we would have granted a CPO (collective proceedings order) in each set of proceedings.
116. This judgment is unanimous"