Charles Morgan’s practice is now entirely concerned with the use and management of water by the water industry, businesses, national and local public bodies and private individuals, in which areas he has been involved for over 35 years (since before privatisation). He is one of a very small number of practitioners with such specific experience and expertise. His work in this field has led to appearances before a huge variety of courts and tribunals all over England & Wales including the Magistrates Court, Government Inspectors, the County Court, the Crown Court, the King’s (formerly Queen’s) Bench Division, the Chancery Division, the Technology and Construction Court, the Administrative Court, the Business & Property Courts, the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords and the Supreme Court. His established wider background in both environmental law and commercial Chancery practice renders him equally confident in addressing public law and private law issues, which often arise together in disputes concerning the use of water, notably in the context of property rights.
Whilst a member of the Attorney-General’s Regional Panel (between c.1985 and 2011) Charles represented the Environment Agency in numerous significant regulatory appeals before government inspectors involving the water industry, as well as advising upon all aspects of the Environment Agency’s functions in relation to the aqueous environment. He also represented and advised a large number of other manifestations of central government. He has long acted for local authorities, mainly in relation to compulsory purchase and compensation cases and other areas of environmental and property law.
Charles’ earlier career provided a thorough grounding in many aspects of commercial Chancery work including building and engineering contracts, insolvency, banking, insurance and sale of goods which render him an unusually versatile practitioner capable of recognising, understanding and advising fully upon all aspects of the real-life multi-faceted situations which affect businesses, individuals and public bodies.
Charles has been since 1992 a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and has extensive experience of commercial arbitration and mediation, including in the context of the water industry.
Water & water industry
- Regulation of the water industry
- Statutory charging, licensing and permitting régimes
- Statutory appeals to the Secretary of State
- Water resources, abstraction and supply
- Sewage and trade effluent disposal
- Water pollution
- Sewer flooding
- Water escapes, leaks and discharges
- Land drainage
- Flooding and flood defence
- Bridges, weirs, sluices, fish passes and similar structures in, over or under water
- Rights in pipes and to supply or flow of water
- Mooring and navigation rights
Recommendations
"Charles Morgan is incredibly knowledgeable and loves delving into the case law, so if you need someone to really get into the details, he is the one, and he is a pleasure to work with."
― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2025]"Charles is a fantastic environmental lawyer".
― Legal 500 [2025]"He has encyclopaedic knowledge of water law, good judgement and is approachable."
― Legal 500 [2023]"His knowledge and experience of environmental law is unsurpassed, he is energetic and productive, and he has great charm."
― Legal 500 [2022]"He really knows his stuff on the Water Act. He is very responsive and helpful on tricky water supply issues."
― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2022]“A go-to barrister for environmental work, he is an expert on water and drainage law.”
― Legal 500 [2021]“Deeply experienced in environmental law, in particular waste and water. He provides practical and creative advice."
― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2021]"What he doesn't know about water and sewage law is scarcely worth knowing."
― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2020]"He is very, very sharp and accessible, and has a crystalline mind.”
― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2018]"The reference brain for water regulatory work, while practical and superb to work with."
― Legal 500 [2017]"He brings natural enthusiasm to projects and cases. He is a very solid professional who communicates well, is an excellent technician and has an excellent brain."
"He is an expert in water and drainage law. A great man for attention to detail and he really gets to the bottom of arguments."
― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2017]"...comes highly recommended for his vast experience in land restoration and flood defence related issues."
― Who’s Who Legal UK Bar [2022]"Charles Morgan is known for his “intricate knowledge” of water industry law. He also advises clients on cases regarding contaminated land, noise pollution and statutory nuisances."
― Who’s Who Legal UK Bar [2016]"...Charles Morgan, whose work relating to water resources, land restoration and aftercare, flood defence and contaminated land offers him a ‘formidable reputation’."
― Who’s Who Legal UK Bar [2015]Education
- MA (Clare College, Cambridge)
- Astbury Scholar and JJ Powell Prizewinner (Middle Temple)
- Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
Publications
- “Cost-benefit analysis – is it worth it?” (2017) 25 Water Law 172
- Property Insolvency Butterworths, March 2015 Author of chapter on “Environmental Liabilities”
- “The fallout from the falling-out over the outfalls. The Manchester Ship Canal decision in the Supreme Court”(2014) 24 Water Law 15 (republished in UKELA e-law November/December 2014 issue #85)
- “The Right to Connect to A Public Sewer – A Moot Point.The Barratt Homes Decision in the Supreme Court”(2009) 20 Water Law 28
- “The Year’s Hottest Cases Reviewed – Part 3 – Water – Sewerage – Pollution” (distilled content of lecture delivered to UKELA 2009 Annual Conference at Durham) (2009) 21 ELM 230
Notable Cases
- Office for Environmental Protection statutory investigation into the regulation of sewerage undertakers by Defra, Ofwat and the Environment Agency. External counsel in this ongoing investigation, the first ever undertaken by the OEP pursuant to its powers in the Environment Act 2021.
- The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and United Utilities Water Ltd [2022] EWHC 3282 (Admin); [2023] Env LR 24 (Administrative Court) – challenge to confirmation of a compulsory purchase order creating the grant of a new right of discharge of sewage effluent into the Manchester Ship Canal, the first CPO of its kind since the privatisation of the water industry. Now awaiting a hearing in the Court of Appeal.
- R (Wild Justice) v The Water Service Regulation Authority [2022] EWHC 2608 (Admin) (Administrative Court) – attendance on behalf of the Office for Environmental Protection in an application for permission to seek judicial review of Ofwat’s approach to regulation of the water industry. The OEP’s first ever appearance in court.
- The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 852; [2023] Ch 21 (Court of Appeal, appeal to Supreme Court heard by a seven-Justice bench in March 2023, judgment awaited) – scope of principle in Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd – application to polluting discharges made in the absence of statutory authorisation.
- The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 852; [2023] Ch 1 (Court of Appeal) – discrete issue in related proceedings re terminability of contractual licences granting rights of discharge expressed to be terminable on notice – vires of local authorities to enter into such agreements in respect of their sewerage functions under the Public Health Acts 1875 and 1936.
- Easteye Ltd v Malhotra Property Investments Ltd [2020] EWHC 2606 (Ch) (Business and Property Courts) – successful challenge to the assertion that two ancient alleyways between mediaeval burgage plots in the centre of Newcastle upon Tyne had become public highways by long use. The trial before HHJ Kramer (sitting as a judge of the High Court) lasted for 13 days, received evidence from over 50 witnesses and examined over 200 years of local records; the judgment runs to 210 pages.
- Easteye Ltd v Malhotra Property Investments Ltd [2019] EWHC 2820 (Ch); [2019] Costs LR 2181 (Business and Property Courts) – costs budgeting, instruction of leading counsel, adequacy of reasoning by District Judge below.
- The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd [2019] EWHC 1495 (Ch) (Business and Property Courts) – cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, Henderson v Henderson abuse of process in the context of longstanding litigation over rights of discharge of sewage into the Manchester Ship Canal.
- Sheffield v Kier Group plc and others [2019] EWHC 986 (Ch); [2019] 3 All ER 1086; [2019] Pens LR 16 (Business and Property Courts) – Local Government Pension Scheme – jurisdiction of Pensions Ombudsman. Successful appeal to the High Court against the determination by the Ombudsman of an issue beyond the limits of the disputes referred to him.
- Environment Agency v Dugbo and Jordan (2016) unreported (Crown Court at Leeds) – successful defence of the former director of a waste recycling company following a 7 week trial for alleged conspiracy to defraud producer compliance schemes by the large-scale production of false WEEE evidence notes and supporting documentation; co-accused received on conviction the longest sentence for environmental crime ever secured by the Environment Agency (7½ years). Specialist junior counsel on the regulatory and corporate aspects. Per His Honour Judge Neil Clark in his sentencing remarks: “What I found really amazing was the amount and complexity of the false paperwork. The scale of the investigation here was enormous.”
- The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water plc (Middle Level Commissioners and others intervening) [2014] UKSC 40; [2014] 1 WLR 2576 (Supreme Court) – existence and extent of implied rights of discharge into private watercourses for sewerage undertakers following privatisation of the water industry in 1989. Leading counsel for the Middle Level Commissioners (a statutory water level management organisation and internal drainage board) as interveners.
- Electrical Waste Recycling Group Ltd and City Electrical Factors Ltd v Philips Electronics UK Ltd and others [2010] EWHC 2064 (Ch); [2011] PTSR D5 – WEEE Directive and Regulations – compliance schemes – nature of producers’ obligation to finance the cost of collection and recovery of their waste products – scope of Directive entitlement to “conclude agreements stipulating other financing methods” – whether UK Regulations properly implemented the Directive in this respect. Other interlocutory proceedings are also reported at [2011] EWHC 3747 (Ch) and [2012] EWHC 38 (Ch).
- R (oao REPIC Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Environment Agency [2009] EWHC 2015 (Admin); [2010] Env LR 24; [2010] PTSR 550 (Administrative Court) WEEE Directive and WEEE Regulations 2006 – whether Regulations properly implemented Directive – whether Environment Agency obliged to enforce Regulations – construction of Regulations. Acted for a compliance scheme as an interested party.
- Graham v Council of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne [2009] UKUT 281 (LC) (Upper Tribunal, Lands Chamber) – compulsory purchase – acquisition to assist supermarket site assembly within an inner urban ‘Action Area’ – character of ‘no scheme world’ – Pointe Gourde principle.
- United Utilities Water plc and others v Environment Agency (2008) (Government Inspector) – statutory appeals under the Water Resources Act 1991 by six sewerage undertakers in 2008 following the final determination of c.4000 “deemed consents” granted on privatisation of the water industry in 1989.
- United Utilities Water plc v Environment Agency (2007) (Government Inspector) -test appeals under the Water Resources Act 1991 against conditions imposed by the Environment Agency upon discharge consents relating to wastewater treatment works in implementation of the Dangerous Substances Directive.
- United Utilities Water plc v Environment Agency (2007) (Government Inspector) -test appeals under the Water Resources Act 1991 against conditions imposed by the Environment Agency upon discharge consents relating to combined sewer overflows in implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.
- United Utilities Water plc v Environment Agency (2007) (Government Inspector) – test appeals under the Water Resources Act 1991 against conditions imposed by the Environment Agency upon discharge consents relating to combined sewer overflows in implementation of the Bathing Water Directive.
- Yorkshire Water Services Ltd v Environment Agency (2006) (Government Inspector) – test appeals under the Water Resources Act 1991 against conditions imposed by the Environment Agency upon discharge consents relating to combined sewer overflows with pumped offline storage.
- Poon v Bon Appettito Ltd. (2005) Lawtel LTL 27/1/2005 L. & T. Review 2005, 9(3), 75-78 (Newcastle County Court, Judge Behrens) – ‘management agreement’ between tenant of a restaurant and occupier – whether in substance an unlawful sub-tenancy – whether remediable breach – whether relief from forfeiture should be granted. Despite its humble origins and obscurity, described by Mark Pawlowski in L. & T. Review 2006, 10(1), 19-22 as “an important county court ruling”.
- Yorkshire Water Services Ltd v Environment Agency (2002) (Government Inspector) – appeal under the Water Resources Act 1991 in respect of the first licensing by the Environment Agency of an aquifer storage and recovery scheme for public water supply.
- Roberts v Howlett [2002] 1 P&CR 19 (p.234) (Ch.D.) – construction of restrictive covenant to use premises only as a single private dwellinghouse – letting to students for profit – whether breach of covenant.
- Environment Agency v R Newcomb & Sons Ltd [2002] EWHC 2095 (Admin); [2003] Env LR 12 (p.288) (Administrative Court) – Environmental Protection Act 1990 section 33 – offence of deposit of controlled waste – construction and scope of exemption contained in paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 – incidence of burden of proof of availability of exemption.
- Public inquiry into applications by Northumbrian Water Ltd for consent to make discharges into the North Sea at Sunderland (2001) (Government Inspector) – representation of the Environment Agency at a “call in” inquiry ordered by the Secretary of State into the adequacy of the proposed new sewerage system for Sunderland following public concern over the likely frequency and quantity of storm discharges from combined sewer overflows.
- Colvin v Watson [2001] PLSCS 130 (Ch.D.) – construction of restrictive covenants binding a residential estate – covenant against building on less than quarter of an acre – criteria for determining area of plot – extent of power of estate committee to withhold consent to development.
- Duffy v Newcastle United Football Co Ltd (2000) “The Independent” 7 July (Court of Appeal) – the “Save Our Seats” litigation – construction of “bond” entitling holder to seat in stadium – redevelopment of stadium – circumstances in which seat could be changed – Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
- Royal Insurance Property Services Ltd v Cliffway Ltd [1996] EGCS 189 (Ch.D) – construction of rent review clause – whether clause permitted downward review – whether tenant entitled to initiate a review.
- National Rivers Authority v The Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company [1991] RVR 48 (House of Lords) – legality of charging scheme for water abstraction licences.