CA 7 February 2002. Claimant's (M) garden had been repeatedly flooded since 1992 by sewage discharged from sewers operated and maintained by the defendant (T). In 1998 M had brought an action against T at common law for breach of statutory duty and under the Human Rights Act 1998 for damages to his property. "Held"that T was not liable for breach of statutory duty or at common law for its failure to carry out preventative works but that that failure constituted an interference with M's right to respect for his private life and home and the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under articles of the European Convention of Human Rights and thus T's inactivity was deemed a liability under Human Rights Act 1998 s6(1) and damages due to M under Human Rights Act 1998 s8(3)."Held" on appeal by T and cross-appeal by M that M had no action for breach of statutory duty but T was under a duty to take reasonable steps in all the circumstances to prevent water discharge on M's property and M was due damages for the entire period of his claim. M's right to damages at common law displaced any Convention rights to damages under the 1998 Act. The claim did not need to be considered under "Rylands v Fletcher". Thames Water launched an appeal in the HL on 27 October 2003. Full copy of judgement available on www.courtservice.gov.uk/View.do?id=1009&searchTerm=Marcic&ascending=false&index=0&maxIndex=2