{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01918859649122807, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008771929824561403, 'mean_word_length': 4.925324675324675, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Challenging the efficiency of nuisance and appreciating the margins of human rights Marcic (respondent) v. Thames Water Utilities Limited (Appellants) [2003] UKHL 66

Mr Peter Marcic had lived in 92 Old Church Lane for over 20 years. In the 10 years to 2002, his house was flooded with sewage from both surface sewers and overflow from noxious underground sewers. This happened anytime it rained significantly. He naturally complained to the company responsible for sewerage matters in the region, Thames Water Utilities, the defendants in this case. They did not do anything about his particular situation, citing cost implications. But in line with the company’s approved strategic plan for the area, it started reconstruction and rehabilitation of the sewerage systems in the affected areas which eventually would have solved Mr Marcic’s problem. Not unexpectedly, Mr Marcic could not wait for an indefinite period. He therefore sued the company for violating his rights to peaceful enjoyment of his home and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights (or the Human Rights Act) and nuisance under the English common Law. He prayed the court to grant an injunction restraining the defendant sewerage company from allowing the use of its network in a way that caused flooding of his home, and a mandatory order to compel the company to improve the sewerage system. He also asked for compensatory damages. The specialist Technology and Construction Court heard the case first and agreed that the flooding violated his right to family life and peaceful enjoyment of his property, but rejected the nuisance claim. On appeal, the three-member Court of Appeal panel upheld Mr Marcic’s claim on both the human rights and nuisance fronts. The company appealed further to the Judicial Division of the House of Lords.