CAMPAIGN UPDATE: We’re not backing down in our legal challenge over the Government’s failure to publish a Special Administration policy

Last year, River Action filed a legal claim challenging the Government’s failure to have or publish a clear policy explaining when it will use its powers to place a failing water company into a Special Administration Regime.

Our case raises a simple but fundamental question: when will Ministers intervene if a water company can no longer meet its legal duties?

When we issued the claim in July 2025, we expected it to follow the normal judicial review timetable, with an initial decision within a matter of months. Instead, despite the claim raising issues of major public importance, there was a lengthy delay before the High Court reached its initial permission decision.

Much has changed during that time. 

The Government is currently considering proposals for the future of Thames Water, while continuing to state that it “stands ready for all eventualities, including a Special Administration Regime”. 

A Special Administration Regime is the statutory mechanism that allows the Government, with the court’s approval, to ensure the continued provision of essential water and sewerage services while stabilising and restructuring a failing water company, creating an opportunity for it to emerge under a new ownership and governance model that better serves the public interest, environmental protection and long-term resilience. 

Yet there remains no published Government policy explaining when those powers will be used or the factors that will be taken into account. Decisions affecting the UK’s largest water company, around 16 million customers and nationally significant infrastructure are expected to be taken in the coming weeks, making transparency and accountability around when and how the Government will act more important than ever.

Recognising the increasing urgency of these issues, on 22 June we asked the High Court to expedite consideration of our claim. In response, the Government argued that the case was not urgent and said again that it does not have a policy governing the exercise of these powers.

Last week, the High Court refused permission for our judicial review to proceed. 

We are disappointed by that decision and we think the judge got it wrong. We continue to believe our claim raises properly arguable grounds which deserve to be considered at a full hearing. So we’ve asked the High Court to reconsider the decision before a different judge.

We have also challenged the judge’s decision on costs. The judge indicated that, had permission been granted, the claim would not have qualified for the costs protection available under the Aarhus Convention. We consider that conclusion to be wrong because our claim raises issues squarely concerning environmental law. The availability of Aarhus costs protection is important because it helps ensure that environmental claims raising matters of public interest can be brought without prohibitive financial risk.

We expect there will now be a hearing later this year to determine whether our judicial review should be allowed to proceed. 

Events surrounding Thames Water may move faster than the litigation. But, whatever happens to Thames Water, the issues raised by this case are far bigger than one company. 

River Action will continue pushing for greater transparency and accountability around the use of Special Administration for failing water companies like Thames Water, while campaigning for a water industry that serves the public interest, protects the environment and restores public confidence.

We are not going away. We will continue challenging failures through the courts, Parliament and public debate and fighting for healthy rivers, transparent decision-making and a water industry that works for people and the environment. 

You can read the High Court’s permission decision here.

You can read our renewal application here.

Learn more about our River Thames campaign here.