(Judgment) Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (EC Treaty, Art. 169)
C-282/96, [1997] EUECJ C-282/96
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161933
(Judgment) Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (EC Treaty, Art. 169)
[1997] EUECJ C-312/96
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161951
ECJ Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, and Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community cannot be interpreted as meaning that the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity are applicable to shipments of waste for recovery. That follows from the provisions of the directive and the regulation and from the preparatory texts. Furthermore, the difference in treatment between waste for recovery and waste for disposal reflects the intention of the Community legislature to encourage recovery of waste in the Community as whole, in particular by eliciting the best technologies, which means that waste of that type should be able to move freely between Member States for processing, thus excluding the application of the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity.
Article 130t of the Treaty, which authorises Member States to adopt protective measures which are more stringent than those adopted pursuant to Article 130s, in so far as they are compatible with the Treaty, does not permit them to extend the application of those principles to waste for recovery when it is clear that those principles create a barrier to exports which is not justified either by an imperative measure relating to protection of the environment or by one of the derogations provided for by Article 36 of the Treaty.
Article 90 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 86, precludes rules such as the Netherlands’ Long-term Plan for the Disposal of Dangerous Waste of June 1993, whereby a Member State requires undertakings to deliver their waste for recovery, such as oil filters, to a national undertaking on which it has conferred the exclusive right to incinerate dangerous waste unless the processing of their waste in another Member State is of a higher quality than that performed by that undertaking if, without any objective justification and without being necessary for the performance of a task in the general interest, those rules have the effect of favouring the national undertaking and increasing its dominant position.
[1998] ECR I-4075, C-203/96, [1998] EUECJ C-203/96
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161890
(Judgment) Failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 76/464/EEC
C-214/96, [1998] EUECJ C-214/96
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161899
ECJ The expression ‘municipal/household waste’ referred to under point AD 160 of the amber list in Annex III to Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Decision 94/721 adapting, pursuant to Article 42(3), Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation No 259/93, includes both waste which for the most part consists of waste mentioned on the green list in Annex II to that regulation, mixed with other categories of waste appearing on that list, and waste mentioned on the green list mixed with a small quantity of materials not referred to on that list. Such mixed waste does not come within the green list unless it has been collected separately or properly sorted.
The information listed in Article 11(1) of the regulation, which must accompany shipments of waste intended for recovery appearing in Annex II, constitutes the minimum evidence which the competent authority may, in the absence of notification, require in order to establish that `green waste’ is intended for recovery.
In the case of shipments of waste which have not been notified to all the competent authorities concerned (illegal traffic), the Member State of destination may not unilaterally return waste to the Member State of dispatch without prior notification to the latter; the Member State of dispatch may not oppose its return where the Member State of destination produces a duly motivated request to that effect.
The reference to the storage of materials in point R 13 of Annex II B to Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, which lists waste recovery operations, covers not only cases in which storage takes place in the undertaking in which the other operations mentioned in that annex must be carried out but also cases in which storage precedes transport to such an undertaking, regardless of whether the latter is established inside or outside the Community.
C-192/96, [1998] EUECJ C-192/96
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161884
ECJ Member States are required to refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the results prescribed by a Directive, even though the date for its implementation has not yet expired.
The test as to whether an item is discarded and is therefore waste was described: ”The general concept is now reasonably clear. The term ‘discard’ is used in a broad sense equivalent to ‘get rid of’; but it is coloured by the examples of waste given in Annex I and the Waste Catalogue, which indicate that it is concerned generally with materials which have ceased to be required for their original purpose, normally because they are unsuitable, unwanted or surplus to requirements.”
[1998] Env LR 623, C-129/96, [1997] ECR I/7411, [1997] EUECJ C-129/96
Cited – Regina on the Application of T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd, Vodafone Ltd, Orange Personal Communication Services Ltd v The Competition Commission, the Director-General of Telecommunications Admn 27-Jun-2003
The applicants sought to challenge a proposed scheme regulating the prices of telephone calls.
Held: The principle objection was to termination charges, charges on calls between networks. The present charges were greater than the actual cost, . .
Cited – British Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited ChD 25-Oct-2000
The claimant alleged that disparaging adverts by the defendant infringed its trade marks and amounted to the tort of malicious falsehood.
Held: There was no dispute that the mark had been used. The Act could not be used to prevent any use of . .
Cited – Ezeemo and Others v Regina CACD 16-Oct-2012
The defendants had been charged with offences relating to their intended transporting of waste materials to Nigeria. They appealed, complaining that the judge had directed that the offence under regulation 23 was an offence of strict liability.
Cited – Environment Agency v Thorn International UK Ltd Admn 2-Jul-2008
The Agency appealed by case stated against the Magistrates’ decision to acquit Thorn of keeping controlled waste contrary to section 33 of the 1990 Act. For that section ‘waste’ had the same meaning as that provided in Art 1(1)(a) of the WFD. The . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 5 of 2000) CACD 6-Jun-2001
Waste products could become ‘controlled waste’ and subject to licensing procedures without there being a recovery or disposal operation being involved. A rendering process produced a condensate which the company wished to spread on farm land without . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161836
Land from which nitrates were leeching off into rivers causing pollution, had to be designated as environmentally vulnerable land, if agricultural activities were a substantial even if only partially cause of the pollution. ‘As regards . . . the principle of proportionality, it is settled law that, in order to establish whether a provision of Community law complies with that principle, it must be ascertained whether the means which it employs are suitable for the purpose of achieving the desired objective and whether they do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it.’
Times 10-May-1999, Case C-293/97, C-157/96, [1998] EUECJ C-157/96
Cited – Regina on the Application of Isle of Anglesey County Council v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 30-Oct-2003
The claimant council sought re-imbursement from the Secretary of the excess housing benefit payments it had made to claimants. The system expected the Council to have made referrals of high rents to rent officers. The respondent had decided that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161859
ECJ Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337 – Project for which consent was obtained prior to the deadline for transposing the directive into national law – New consent procedure initiated after that deadline – Project subject to obligations relating to environmental impact assessment (Council Directive 85/337) Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment is to be interpreted as not permitting Member States to waive the obligations regarding environmental assessments in the case of projects listed in Annex I of the directive where – the projects have already been the subject of a consent granted prior to 3 July 1988, the date by which the directive was to have been transposed into national law, – the consent was not preceded by an environmental assessment in accordance with the requirements of the directive and no use was made of it, and a fresh consent procedure was formally initiated after 3 July 1988. It is true that the principle of compulsory environmental assessment in accordance with the directive does not apply where the consent procedure was initiated before 3 July 1988 and was still in progress on that date. The reason for that is to avoid making more cumbersome and time-consuming, as a result of the specific requirements imposed by the directive, procedures which are already complex at national level and which were formally initiated before that date. Those considerations do not apply, however, in the circumstances mentioned above, particularly as national legal remedies are available in respect of the new consent procedure.
C-81/96, [1998] EUECJ C-81/96
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161804
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio – Italy. Regulation (EC) No 258/97 – Novel foods – Placing on the market – Safety assessment – Simplified procedure – Substantial equivalence to existing foods – Foods produced from genetically modified maize – Presence of residues of transgenic protein – Measure by a Member State temporarily restricting or suspending the trade in or use of a novel food in its territory.
C-236/01, [2003] EUECJ C-236/01
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.186322
(Judgment) Harbour company – Prevention of pollution – Legal monopoly – Abuse of a dominant position.
C-343/95, [1997] EUECJ C-343/95
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161710
(Judgment) 1 Approximation of laws – Motor vehicles – Procedure for Community type-approval – Directive 70/156 – Right of the Member States to refuse to register vehicles with a valid Community type-approval certificate – Conditions – National rules subjecting the registration of motor vehicles to the production of a national certificate declaring that they comply with national exhaust emission rules – Not permissible (Council Directive 70/156, Art. 7(1) and (3))
2 Community law – Interpretation – Acts of the institutions – Declaration recorded in minutes – Whether to be taken into consideration – Not permissible where no reference is made to the declaration in the act itself
3 Directive 70/156 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, as amended by Directive 92/53, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which motor vehicles covered by a valid Community type-approval certificate cannot be registered unless a national certificate is produced attesting to their conformity with national requirements concerning exhaust emissions.
It is clear from Article 7(1) and (3) of the directive that a Member State may refuse to register a vehicle with a valid Community type-approval certificate only if it finds that the vehicle is a serious risk to road safety. Refusal to register under the national rules on the basis of considerations of environmental protection does not satisfy the conditions governing the derogation provided for by that provision.
4 A declaration recorded in minutes is of limited value, since it cannot be used for the purposes of interpreting a provision of Community law where no reference is made to the content of the declaration in the wording of the provision in question and the declaration therefore has no legal significance.
C-329/95, [1997] EUECJ C-329/95
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161702
ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfil obligations – Council Directives 90/219/EEC and 90/220/EEC – Genetically modified organisms. A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.
C-312/95, [1996] EUECJ C-312/95
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161691
ECJ (Judgment) 1 Approximation of laws – Quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life and quality required of shellfish waters – Directives 78/659 and 79/923 – Need for exact transposition by the Member States
(Council Directives 78/659 and 79/923)
2 Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to implement – Justification – Not permissible
(EC Treaty, Art. 169)
3 Approximation of laws – Quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life and quality required of shellfish waters – Directives 78/659 and 79/923 – Obligation to establish specific programmes in order to reduce pollution
(Council Directives 78/659, Art. 5, and 79/923, Art. 5)
4 Directives 78/659 and 79/923 seek to protect human health through the monitoring of the quality of waters which support, or could support, fish suitable for human consumption or shellfish directly edible by man. This objective implies that in all cases where non-implementation of the measures required could endanger human health those concerned must be in a position to rely on mandatory rules in order to be able to assert their rights. Correct transposition therefore requires the adoption of measures which are indisputably binding.
5 A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.
6 It follows clearly from the wording of Article 5 of Directives 78/659 and 79/923 as well as from the detailed arrangements for monitoring water quality laid down by those directives that Member States have an obligation to establish specific programmes in order to reduce pollution of fresh waters and shellfish waters within five and six years respectively.
Neither, with regard to Directive 78/659, general water-purification programmes designed to reduce water pollution caused by effluent nor, with regard to Directive 79/923, the finding, through the taking of samples, that shellfish waters meet the requirements of that directive can exempt a Member State from the obligation to establish specific programmes in accordance with Article 5 of those directives.
C-298/95, [1996] EUECJ C-298/95
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161679
(Judgment) 1. The need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary for the latter to define the factual and legislative context of the questions submitted or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based.
The information provided in orders for reference serves not only to enable the Court to give helpful answers but also to enable the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations in accordance with Article 20 of the Statute of the Court. It is the Court’ s duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations is safeguarded, in view of the fact that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.
2. Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing criminal penalties to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down by Directive 91/156 amending Directive 75/442 on waste, provided that those penalties are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and are, in any event, effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Although the directive in question does not impose any specific obligation on the Member States as regards systems of controls and penalties, that does not mean that national provisions which impose criminal penalties for infringements of legislation implementing the directive are incompatible with the latter. The Member States are required, within the bounds of the freedom left to them by the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, to choose the most appropriate forms and methods to ensure the effectiveness of directives, and Article 5 of the Treaty requires them, in the circumstances referred to above, to take all measures necessary to guarantee the application and effectiveness of Community law.
C-58/95, [1996] EUECJ C-58/95
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161527
(Judgment) When designating an area of land as a wild bird special protection site, economic factors were to be excluded.
ECJ Article 4(1) or Article 4(2) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, which requires the Member States to take special conservation measures for certain species, and in particular to designate as Special Protection Areas the most suitable territories for their conservation, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not authorized to take account of the economic requirements mentioned in Article 2 of the directive when choosing and defining the boundaries of a Special Protection Area or even to take account of economic requirements constituting a general interest superior to that represented by the ecological objective of that directive. Similarly, a Member State may not take account of economic requirements in so far as they amount to imperative reasons of overriding public interest of the kind referred to in Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of the natural habitats of wild fauna and flora, as inserted in Directive 79/409. Although the latter provision widened the range of grounds on which it may be justified to encroach upon Special Protection Areas already designated as such, by expressly including therein reasons of a social or economic nature, it nevertheless did not make any change regarding the initial stage of classification referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409, and therefore the classification of sites as Special Protection Areas must in all circumstances be carried out in accordance with the criteria accepted by those provisions.
GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P
Times 02-Aug-1996, [1997] 2 WLR 123, [1996] ECR I-3805, [1996] 3 CMLR 411, [1997] Env LR 442, C-44/95, [1997] QB 206, [1996] EUECJ C-44/95
Council Directive 79/409/EEC Conservation of Wild Birds
Cited – Bown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .
Cited – Sustainable Shetland v The Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 9-Feb-2015
Wind Farm Permission Took Proper Account
Sustainable Shetland challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm saying that the respondents had failed properly to take account of their obligations under the Birds Directive, in respect of the whimbrel, a protected migratory bird.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161518
ECJ Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93
Waste includes substances discarded by their owners, even if they ”have a commercial value and are collected on a commercial basis for recycling, reclamation or re-use”.
Mancini, P
[1997] ECR 1-3561, [1998] Env LR 59, C-304/94, [1997] EUECJ C-304/94
Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93, Council Directive 91/156/EEC, Council Directive 91/689/EEC
See Also – Euro Tombesi, Santella etc ECJ 25-Jun-1997
ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 . .
See Also – Tombesi and Others ECJ 25-Jun-1997
ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 . .
See Also – Tombesi ECJ 25-Jun-1997
(Environment And Consumers) Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/9 . .
Cited – Ezeemo and Others v Regina CACD 16-Oct-2012
The defendants had been charged with offences relating to their intended transporting of waste materials to Nigeria. They appealed, complaining that the judge had directed that the offence under regulation 23 was an offence of strict liability.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161464
ECJ 1. Wherever the provisions of a directive appear, as far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may be relied upon by an individual against the State where the State fails to implement the directive in national law by the end of the period prescribed or where it fails to implement the directive correctly.
In this connection a Community provision is unconditional where it is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the taking of any measure either by the institutions of the Community or by the Member States and it is sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual and applied by the court where the obligation which it imposes is set out in unequivocal terms.
2. Article 4 of Directive 75/442 on waste, which requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, does not confer on individuals rights which the national courts must safeguard.
That provision, in setting out the objectives which the Member States must observe in their performance of the more specific obligations imposed on them by other provisions of the directive, merely indicates a programme to be followed. It defines the framework for the action to be taken by the Member States regarding the treatment of waste and does not require, in itself, the adoption of specific measures or a particular method of waste disposal. It is therefore neither unconditional nor sufficiently precise and thus is not capable of conferring rights on which individuals may rely as against the State.
C-236/92, [1994] EUECJ C-236/92
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160942
ECJ 1. A Member State which is bound to implement a directive is not entitled to draw the inference from the Commission’ s initial failure to react to a communication addressed to it regarding the manner in which the Member State intended to implement the directive that the Commission, which was obliged by neither Article 5 of the Treaty nor the provisions of the directive to express a view within a given period, had approved the criteria notified. It is for the Commission to decide when it intends to formulate objections and there is nothing to prevent it subsequently bringing proceedings against the Member State for failure to fulfil obligations.
2. The definition of ‘bathing water’ within the meaning of the second indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water must, in the light of the directive’ s underlying purpose as expressed in the recitals in the preamble thereto, be understood as encompassing at all events the waters of bathing resorts equipped with certain facilities, such as changing huts, toilets and markers indicating bathing areas, and supervised by lifeguards.
3. Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water, Article 4(1) of which imposes an obligation on Member States to take all the measures necessary to ensure that their bathing waters conform to the physical, chemical and microbiological values laid down by the directive within a period of ten years from its notification, requires Member States to take steps to ensure that the prescribed results are attained within the period laid down; apart from the derogations expressly provided for by the directive they may not rely on particular circumstances to justify a failure to fulfil that obligation.
C-56/90, [1993] EUECJ C-56/90, [1993] ECR I-4109
Cited – Clientearth, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 29-Apr-2015
The applicant had challenged the failure by the governement to secure appropriate air quality standards. The question had earlier been referred to the ECJ, and the Court now considered the appropriate orders following the ECJ judgment.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160449
Europa (Order) APPLICATION for interim measures to suspend temporarily the construction work being carried out under a coastal protection project in the area of the Leybucht, pursuant to a decision of 25 September 1985 granting planning permission, in a protection area covered by Article 4(1 ) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds
Although the Member States do have a certain discretion with regard to the choice of the territories which are most suitable for classification as special protection areas pursuant to Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, they do not have the same discretion to modify or reduce the extent of such areas, which contain the most suitable environments for the species listed in Annex I, and thus unilaterally escape from the obligations imposed on them by Article 4(4) of the directive.
The power of the member States to reduce the extent of special protection areas can be justified only on exceptional grounds corresponding to a general interest which is superior to the general interest represented by the ecological objective of the directive. In that context the economic and recreational requirements referred to in Article 2 of the directive do not enter into consideration, since that provision does not constitute an autonomous derogation from the system of protection established by the directive
C-57/89, [1991] ECR I-883, [1991] EUECJ C-57/89
Cited – Bown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160219
There is no obligation to refer every application to the Secretary of State where an objector raised a plausible argument that an environmental impact assessment might be needed. In this case the application did not fall within Schedule I, and nor was it in a sensitive area, and nor was it over 0.5 hectares, and it was not open to the inspector to conclude that it might require an assessment. Regulation 9(2) did not require a reference whenever a plausible argument was raised that an assessment might be required. The 1999 Regulations did comply with the appropriate European Directives and jurisprudence.
courtcommentary.com Desiderata in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 for separating major impact applications (‘EIA applications’) from those giving rise only to a lesser impact
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Kay
Gazette 26-Jul-2001, Times 19-Oct-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1012
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288, Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 293) 9(2)
England and Wales
Leave Appelication – Robert and Sonia Burkett, Application for Permission To Apply for Judicial Review CA 13-Dec-2000
. .
Cited – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Mansfield District Council and Another CA 16-Oct-2003
Plannning permission was sought. Objectors said that it would have such an impact that an environmental impact assessment was required. They now sought judicial review of the decision to proceed without one.
Held: The judge had explained the . .
Appeal heard – Robert and Sonia Burkett, Application for Permission To Apply for Judicial Review CA 13-Dec-2000
. .
Cited – Richardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160057
Over a long period of time the applicants had deposited large quantities of waste on their land to hard standings and tracks. They were served with enforcement notices alleging a change from agricultural use, to agricultural use with waste deposit, and unauthorised engineering and other operations in creating a hard standing, or that it was permitted development. They appealed the notices saying that there had been no engineering operations, saying ‘in order to discover whether some development is permitted by that part one should first examine whether the development is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. ‘ But that was not the procedure followed. The inspector found that they had been used for feeding sheep, and she held this was ‘accommodating’ them.
Held: The word ‘accomodation’ came from the Latin ‘accommodatus’ which meant suitable, and that could apply to the hard standing, and was not restricted as the judge had found: ‘So one must look to the context.’ The claimant might have sought to specify the extent of use for agricultural purposes as a fall-back position, but had not done so. The inspector had not addressed in her decision the extent to which the hard standing was on the former site of a track and was an improvement. The inspectors failure to suggest this was not an error in law, and it was not reasonable to return the matter to the inspector. The court discouraged site inspections: ‘The function of a site visit is to enable an inspector to make a judgment about submissions which have been made rather than to explore new possibilities. ‘ The enforcement notice stood as varied by the inspector.
Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Keene
[2001] EWCA Civ 1254, Gazette 04-Oct-2001, Times 16-Oct-2001, [2002] PLCR 11
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174, General Permitted Development Order 1995
England and Wales
Appeal from – Taylor v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another QBD 30-Jan-2001
An area with a hard surface which was used as a hard standing for feeding sheep, and which was formed by deposit of builder’s rubble was not a habitation and therefore was not used for the accommodation of sheep. Since the landowner was entitled to . .
Cited – Cowen v Secretary of State for Environment Peak District National Park Authority CA 26-May-1999
A land-owner laid a tarmac surface on a path within the National Park. This was held to be an improvement required for the right of way. The fact that works constituted an alteration did not avoid the protection given as an improvement. . .
Explained – Exmouth Marina Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 3-Jun-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159893
Where an electricity supplier operated a waste plant to generate electricity, but still, the predominant use of the plant was for waste disposal, the rates were not to be calculated under the industry’s own special rules, but under those for the general rating of business premises. An explanatory note may be referred to as an aid to construction where the statutory instrument to which it is attached is ambiguous.
Lord Hope considered the meaning of the phrase ‘in connection with’ and said: ‘The majority in the Court of Appeal held that it was a sufficient answer to the appellant’s argument to construe the words ‘in connection with’ as meaning ‘having to do with’. This explanation of the meaning of the phrase was given by McFarlane J in Re Nanaimo Community Hotel Limited [1944] 4 D.L.R. 638. It was adopted by Somervell L.J. in Johnson v. Johnson [1952] P. 47, 50-51. It may be that in some contexts the substitution of the words ‘having to do with’ will solve the entire problem which is created by the use of the words ‘in connection with.’ But I am not, with respect, satisfied that it does so in this case, and Mr. Holgate did not rely on this solution to the difficulty. As he said, the phrase is a protean one which tends to draw its meaning from the words which surround it. In this case it is the surrounding words, when taken together with the words used in the 1991 Amending Order and its wider context, which provide the best guide to a sensible solution of the problem which has been created by the ambiguity.’
Lord Steyn Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Millett
Times 30-Nov-1999, Gazette 08-Dec-1999, [1999] UKHL 49, [1999] 1 WLR 2093, [2000] 1 All ER 97
House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) Order 1989 (1989 No 2474)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Montila and Others HL 25-Nov-2004
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 11-May-2007
Retired bank employees had previously received free tax advice. When the service was withdrawn, the bank made a payment. The Revenue said that this payment was chargeable to income tax.
Held: The bank’s appeal failed. The payment was made ‘in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159032
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal offence.
Held: Nevertheless, the provision of such information was required in this case, for purposes associated with the maintenance of public safety, and was therefore not an infringement of his right against self incrimination.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 22-Feb-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000, [2000] UKHL 11, [2000] 2 WLR 373, [2000] 2 AC 412, [2000] 1 All ER 773, [2000] All ER (D) 199
Environmental Protection Act 1990 71(2)
England and Wales
Cited – Bank of England v Riley 1992
Exercise of the right of privilege against self-incrimination. . .
Cited – In Re London United Investments Plc CA 1992
The privilege against self-incrimination was impliedly excluded by the terms of a statute which conferred power on company inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State to require documents and answers to questions from any person whom they . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Serious Fraud Office, ex Parte Smith HL 15-Jul-1992
The applicant having been cautioned for an offence under the Companies Act 1985, he objected to being required to answer questions put to him in connection with the matter by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office under the 1987 Act.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Bishopsgate Investment Limited v Maxwell CA 1999
A person required to answer questions under the section may not refuse to answer on the ground of self-incrimination. (Dillon LJ) ‘It is plain to my mind – and not least from the Cork Report – that part of the mischief in the old law before the . .
Cited – A T and T Istel Ltd v Tully HL 9-Sep-1992
The second plaintff had agreed to supply computer systems to a health authority. New owners of the company discovered allegations that the contract had been operated fraudulently. An order had been obtained for production of documents, but the order . .
Cited – Rex v Warickshall 1783
Evidence that stolen goods were found under the bed of the accused was admitted notwithstanding that the discovery was made in consequence of her inadmissible confession. Evidence obtained by oppression should be admitted to court. Involuntary . .
Cited – Saunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Cited – Hamilton and Another v Naviede and Director of SFO HL 26-Jul-1994
A Company Court Judge may not fetter the later use of insolvency interviews by a criminal court. The obligation to give the information will not prejudice the fairness of a possible criminal trial, since the accused would still have the protection . .
Cited – Hui Chi-ming v The Queen PC 5-Aug-1991
(Hong Kong) The defendant was charged with aiding and abetting a murder. A, carrying a length of water pipe and accompanied by the defendant and four other youths, seized a man and A hit him with the pipe, causing injuries from which he died. No . .
Cited – Orkem v Commission (Judgment) ECJ 18-Oct-1989
The court considered the powers of the Commission to demand information in an investigation of possible offences against the Community competition laws. Article 11 of Regulation 17 of 1962 gave the Commission power, for the purposes of ensuring the . .
Cited – Serves v France ECHR 20-Oct-1997
Captain Serves was a French officer charged in 1988 before a military court, together with a lieutenant and corporal of his company, with the murder of a civilian in the Central African Republic. In 1989 the proceedings were quashed for procedural . .
Cited – Funke v France ECHR 25-Feb-1993
M. Funke successfully challenged his conviction for failing to provide documents which the customs authorities had demanded of him, on the grounds that his rights under Article 6 had been infringed: ‘The Court notes that the customs secured Mr. . .
Appeal from – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council ex parte Green Environmental Industries Limited, Moynihan CA 9-Oct-1997
There was no protection against self-incrimination where information was properly required by the Waste Regulation Authority to carry out its duties. . .
Cited – Payton, Regina v CACD 26-May-2006
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of 66 grams of cannabis with intent to supply. Also found were a large number of small bags and pounds 7,000 in cash. The defendant said the cannabis was for his personal use, and the equipment had . .
Cited – C Plc v P and Attorney General Intervening CA 22-May-2007
The respondent had been subject to a civil search, which revealed the existence of obscene images of children on his computer. He appealed against refusal of an order that the evidence should not be passed to the police as evidence. He said that the . .
Cited – Gold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 8-Feb-2016
INCOME TAX – CORPORATION TAX – preliminary hearing on matters of law – COP9 letter issued to Mr Budhdeo (‘Mr B’) – contractual disclosure offered and refused – whether FTT has jurisdiction to close a ‘COP9 enquiry’ – no -whether HMRC using SA and CT . .
Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159043
When considering if premises fell within the section, and were ‘in such a state as to be prejudicial to health’, the court must consider some feature of the premises which was in itself prejudicial. An arrangement of rooms which was unsatisfactory and might be considered insanitary did not fall within the provision. The risk of cross infection because the water closet was placed next to the kitchen, and wash basin was in the bathroom on the other side, could not constitute a state of the premises. A broad reading of the words might include the premises. Nevertheless, considering the history of the legislation a narrow interpretation was correct. The section was directed to the presence in the house of some feature in itself prejudicial to health as a source of infection, disease, or illness. The difficulty here was not in the rooms in themselves rather but than their condition, and was outside the purpose of the section, and not a statutory nuisance.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘My Lords, on the surface, this does not look like a very momentous case. The question is whether Mr and Mrs Oakley’s landlord should have provided them with a basin in the wc. The statute which they say made it necessary to install one is ambiguous. The language is capable of bearing such a construction. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that this was what Parliament intended. So the courts have a choice. If they say that Mr and Mrs Oakley should have had a basin, landlords of old houses and flats all over the country will have to instal them. Local authorities and housing trusts will have to incur very considerable expense. Under the surface, therefore, the case raises a question of great constitutional importance. When it comes to the expenditure of large sums of public and private money, who should make the decision? If the statute is clear, then of course Parliament has already made the decision and the courts merely enforce it. But when the statute is doubtful, should judges decide? Or should they leave the decision to democratically elected councillors or members of Parliament?’ and ‘when a statute employs a concept which may change in content with advancing knowledge, technology or social standards, it should be interpreted as it would be currently understood. The content may change but the concept remains the same. The meaning of the statutory language remains unaltered. So the concept of a vehicle has the same meaning today as it did in 1800, even though it includes methods of conveyance which would not have been imagined by a legislator of those days. The same is true of social standards. The concept of cruelty is the same today as it was when the Bill of Rights 1688 forbade the infliction of ‘cruel and unusual punishments’. But changes in social standards mean that punishments which would not have been regarded as cruel in 1688 will be so regarded today.’
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett
Gazette 15-Dec-2000, Times 30-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 59, [2001] 1 All ER 385, [2000] 3 WLR 1936, [2001] 1 AC 617
Environmental Protection Act 1990 77 79(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited – Salford City Council v McNally HL 1976
The House considered the interaction of the 1936 and 1957 Acts as to the distinction between the questions of injury to health and fitness for human habitation: ‘It was not a defence to establish that the house, the subject of the complaint, was . .
Appeal from – Oakley v Birmingham City Council QBD 8-Jan-1999
The justices had concluded that the layout itself of premises was so unhygienic as to be ‘in a state prejudicial to health.’ The small toilets without a wash basin and next to the kitchen created a risk of cross-infection, and were a statutory . .
Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Cited – Vella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Cited – Owens v Owens CA 24-Mar-2017
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria
W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159093
Appeal against refusal to permit construction over water course.
Sullivan J
[2004] EWHC 2394 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.219216
The term ‘watercourse’ did not include an estuary or a river. The history of such legislation required that restricted interpretation. Accordingly, a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance served by a Health authority on a water undertaker, was not validly served, where it depended upon the estuary being a watercourse. There had been no obligation to consult with the undertaker before serving the notice. The notice was not invalid for failing to specify how the nuisance should be abated.
Gazette 08-Jun-2000, Times 24-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 96
Public Health Act 1936 259(1)(a)
England and Wales
Appealed from – Falmouth and Truro Health Authority v South West Water Services Admn 23-Apr-1999
A watercourse for the purpose of the Act was only a limited area of water and could not include a river or an estuary. An authority serving an abatement notice in respect of sewerage discharges, was not under a duty to consult first with the water . .
Appealed to – Falmouth and Truro Health Authority v South West Water Services Admn 23-Apr-1999
A watercourse for the purpose of the Act was only a limited area of water and could not include a river or an estuary. An authority serving an abatement notice in respect of sewerage discharges, was not under a duty to consult first with the water . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147129
A surveyor was engaged to report on a property, and was specifically requested to advise on the levels of aircraft noise from a nearby airport which might affect the property. He failed to report on the proximity of a navigation beacon.
Held: He was not liable for damages for the non-physical damage for discomfort and disturbance which ensued. For such damages to be awardable, the contract had one for the purposes of provision of leisure, relaxation or peace of mind.
Times 14-Apr-2000, Gazette 14-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 109
England and Wales
Cited – Heywood v Wellers CA 1976
The claimant instructed solicitors in injunction proceedings which they conducted negligently. The solicitors had put the case in the hands of an incompetent junior clerk. She sued acting in person, and succeeded but now appealed the only limited . .
Appeal from – Farley v Skinner HL 11-Oct-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant surveyor. He had asked the defendant whether the house he was to buy was subject to aircraft noise. After re-assurance, he bought the house. The surveyor was wrong and negligent. A survey would not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147142
A waste disposal company was in insolvent administration. The Environment Agency sought to prosecute it for breaches of criminal law relating to its licenses.
Held: The bar on proceedings against a company in administration operated for criminal as well as civil proceedings. The section was intended to allow the company a breathing space. Nevertheless, a prosecution could be brought with leave.
Times 02-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 38
England and Wales
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147071
The Secretary of State may accept undertakings from water companies to provide a wholesome water supply, rather than requiring a court to order them to achieve the same thing.
Times 04-Apr-1994, Independent 12-Apr-1994
Water Industry Act 1991 68(1)(a)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.87695
The defendants had applied inorganic fertiliser to their land, eventually causing pollution of the claimant’s water supply. The pollution exceeded EC levels. However the claimants had not established that the damage was foreseeable, nor that the practice of the defendant farmers was other than standard practice.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. They had not established forseeability as required in Cambridge Water.
Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Mummery Mr Justice Gage
[1999] EWCA Civ 2056, [1999] EWCA Civ 2056
England and Wales
Applied – Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146971
(Trinidad and Tobago)
Lord Reed, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones
[2018] UKPC 24
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.627137
[2005] EWHC 1289 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.229870
[2002] EWCA Civ 61
Environmental Protection Act 1990 81(6)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.216749
[2002] EWCA Civ 58
Environmental Protection Act 1990
England and Wales
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.216751
Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Schiemann
Gazette 11-Sep-2003
England and Wales
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.184779
The court was asked ‘whether the burning of Cemfuel, as a fuel in the Ribblesdale and Ketton Cement Works operated by the Applicant (Castle), amounts to the burning of ‘hazardous waste’, as the Environment Agency has concluded, or to the burning of a non-waste fuel, as Castle contends.’
Held: Stanley Burnton J said: ‘Whether material is ‘waste’ cannot depend on whether any particular holder of it stores and uses it in an environmentally and otherwise safe manner. Its categorisation should depend on its qualities, not on the qualities of its storage or use. Otherwise the material would be and cease to be waste and come within and outside the controls on hazardous waste as it passed from one holder to another. This would be inconsistent with any rational system of waste control.’ and
‘But for the subsequent judgment of the European Court of Justice in Arco, I should have gratefully adopted Carnwath J’s fine exegesis of the law on this subject. As it is, and regrettably from my point of view, his judgment must now be read subject to the decision of the court in Arco. In particular the last sentence of para 46 of his judgment is inconsistent with paragraphs 94 and 97 of the judgment in Epon.’
Stanley Burnton J
[2001] EWHC Admin 224
Waste Framework Directive, 75/442/EEC, Council Directive 91/156/EEC, Council Directive 91/692/EEC
Limited – Regina v Environment Agency ex parte Dockgrange Limited and Mayer Parry Limited Admn 22-May-1997
The verb ‘discard’ in the Waste Framework Directive has a special and limited meaning which requires the materials to be subjected to a disposal or recovery operation.
Carnwath J said: ‘The general concept is now reasonably clear. The term . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 5 of 2000) CACD 6-Jun-2001
Waste products could become ‘controlled waste’ and subject to licensing procedures without there being a recovery or disposal operation being involved. A rendering process produced a condensate which the company wished to spread on farm land without . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140294
If, at the time a plant was placed in a pot to be grown, it was also intended that the pot should be used when the plant was sold, then the pot was deemed to be packaging and was subject to the rules with regard to packaging recycling obligations. The pots into which the plants were finally transplanted were expected to be discarded by customers. The primary purpose was not for the growth of the plants, but was used as ‘packaging conceived so as to constitute a sales unit’ The original purpose was only one element of all the circumstances which the court should look at.
The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales, And Mr Justice Newman
Times 16-Feb-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 58, [2001] EWHC Admin 587
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997 No. 648), Council Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140269
[2000] EWHC Admin 406
Water Industry Act 1991, Environment Act 1995
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140222
[2000] EWHC Admin 304, [2001] Env LR 35
Cited – Regina v Daventry District Council ex parte Thornby Farms Admn 28-Jul-2000
The council granted licences for the disposal of waste animal carcasses by incineration. The objectors said the council had failed to take note of art 4 of the directive, and that as clinical waste alternative regimes applied.
Held: Animal . .
Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd Admn 22-Aug-2013
The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140118
[1999] EWHC Admin 772
England and Wales
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.140036
[1999] EWHC Admin 774
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.140038
A watercourse for the purpose of the Act was only a limited area of water and could not include a river or an estuary. An authority serving an abatement notice in respect of sewerage discharges, was not under a duty to consult first with the water company, but should do so if it had raised an expectation of consultation.
Times 06-May-1999, Gazette 06-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 349
Environmental Protection Act 1990 80 259
England and Wales
Appealed to – Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority v South West Water Limited CA 30-Mar-2000
The term ‘watercourse’ did not include an estuary or a river. The history of such legislation required that restricted interpretation. Accordingly, a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance served by a Health authority on a water undertaker, was . .
Appealed from – Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority v South West Water Limited CA 30-Mar-2000
The term ‘watercourse’ did not include an estuary or a river. The history of such legislation required that restricted interpretation. Accordingly, a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance served by a Health authority on a water undertaker, was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139613
The power to judge whether an application for planning permission would have substantial environmental effect was not capable of being exercised by an officer of the Council without an express delegation of that power. The decision as to whether there should be an environmental statement was an important one, and that if an authority wished to delegate the decision to an officer, it had to do so formally and could not rely on some general practice alone.
Hooper J
Times 05-May-1999, [1999] JPL 805, [1999] EWHC Admin 298
Cited – Younger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 26-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to quash a planning decision on the basis that a screening decision had not been made.
Held: Though the procedures within the authority could have been bettered, there was no formal requirement for a screening option to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139562
The prosecutor appealed against the decision of magistrates to stay a prosecution as an abuse.
Held: The decision of a prosecutor to prosecute remains his alone. Where no clear representations had been made that if certain works were carried out a prosecution would not follow, and the works were not carried out, the prosecution was not an abuse of process.
Lord Bingham LCJ said: ‘The jurisdiction to stay, as has been repeatedly explained, is one to be exercised with the greatest caution . . The question of whether or not to prosecute is for the prosecutor. Most of the points relied on in support of an argument of abuse are more profitably relied on as mitigation.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Thomas J
Gazette 16-Jun-1999, [1998] EWHC Admin 690, [1999] ENV LR 286, [1998] COD 373
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(b)
Cited – Coates v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 29-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for driving a Segway scooter on a footpath. He denied that it was ‘a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads.’
Held: The appeal failed. The district judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138811
Environmental Health officers inspecting food premises had rights of entry to inspect all areas and records to establish whether offence was being committed. There was only a limited privilege against self-incrimination.
Times 09-Apr-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 327
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138448
[1998] EWHC Admin 304
Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138425
A notice requiring the removal of a rat infestation was effective though it had only been signed by a member of the staff of the local authority.
Times 27-Feb-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 162
Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138283
[1998] EWHC Admin 106
Environmental Protection Act 1995
Cited – Marath and Another v MacGillivray CA 5-Feb-1996
A landlord’s notice to the effect that ‘3 month’s rent due’ was a sufficiently precise demand to allow the tenant to know the nature of his default, and the notice was valid. the relevant notice said: ‘Signed: RM If signed by agent, name and address . .
Cited – Rogan v Woodfield Building Services Ltd CA 10-Aug-1994
The duty placed on a Landlord by the section is to give to the tenant a notice of an address for service for the landlord in writing. Stuart Smith LJ said: ‘what the section requires is that the tenant is told, so that he knows, the landlord’s name . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138227
The local authority issued a noise nuisance abatement notice. By the time the matter came to the court, the nuisance had been abated.
Held: The background situation justifying the issue of a nuisance abatement notice was to be assessed at the date at which it was issued, and not at the later date of a magistrates’ or crown court hearing. The notice properly did not say what works were required, since the land owner might choose to abate it in several ways.
Lord Justice Simon Brown And Mr Justice Mance
Times 13-Feb-1998, Gazette 11-Feb-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 92
Environmental Protection Act 1990 80(1)
Appealed to – Surrey Free Inns v Gosport Borough Council CA 12-Jun-1998
A noise abatement notice had been served, and appealed to the magistrates. By the time the matter came before the Crown Court, the bar had been soundproofed. The question then was which was the applicable time.
Held: In view of the contrasting . .
Cited – Millard v Wastall 1898
The emission of black smoke from a factory chimney was a nuisance.
Held: When considering an order for the abatement of a nuisance, if the Justices considered it was necessary for things to be done to abate the nuisance, they had normally to . .
Cited – McGillivray v Stephenson 1950
The court upheld a notice requiring a person to abate a nuisance constituting stinking pigs, which said ‘and for that purpose to remove the whole of the pigs from the premises, clear up the effect of their past presence, and cease for the future to . .
Cited – Regina v Fenny Stratford Justices ex parte Watney Mann Ltd 1976
An order had been made to abate a nuisance caused by loud noise from a juke box. The abatement notice as served required that the nuisance be abated ‘and the level of noise in [the premises] shall not exceed 70dB(A)’.
Held: The words quoted . .
Cited – Network Housing Association Ltd v Westminster City Council QBD 7-Nov-1994
An abatement notice was addressed by the respondent city council to freehold owners of tenanted premises, in respect of a noise source which it was out of their power to stop. This was noise from perfectly normal everyday living, which reached one . .
Cited – Sterling Homes v Birmingham City Council QBD 1996
The operations of a mammoth press by an industrial operator in close proximity to a residential block of which Sterling were freehold owners, caused a nuisance. The city council served on Sterling (not on the neighbouring industrial operator) an . .
Cited – Surrey Free Inns v Gosport Borough Council CA 12-Jun-1998
A noise abatement notice had been served, and appealed to the magistrates. By the time the matter came before the Crown Court, the bar had been soundproofed. The question then was which was the applicable time.
Held: In view of the contrasting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138213
[1997] EWHC Admin 1167
Appeal To – Regina v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council Ex Parte Kirkham CA 5-May-1998
When an application had been made for planning permission for a waste incinerator, a neighbour had a sufficient interest to apply for a judicial review, but the Local Authority was right to pay heed to the Best Practicable Environmental Option . .
Appeal From – Regina v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council Ex Parte Kirkham CA 5-May-1998
When an application had been made for planning permission for a waste incinerator, a neighbour had a sufficient interest to apply for a judicial review, but the Local Authority was right to pay heed to the Best Practicable Environmental Option . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.138112
An abatement notice requiring works to be carried out must state clearly what works are required or considered necessary. There was an imminent danger of the collapse onto some cottages of a rockface and wall where the notice was addressed to the respondents as owners of the rockface and wall and simply required them to ‘abate the statutory nuisance’. It was obvious from the abatement notice and indeed the circumstances that the only way in which this could be achieved was by (probably very extensive) works of shoring up and securing the rockface.
Lord Justice Brooke Mr Justice Owen And Mr Justice Gage
Times 26-Nov-1997, Gazette 26-Nov-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 960
Environmental Protection Act 1990 80
Cited – Regina v Wheatley 1885
If the magistrates think it necessary for things to be done to abate a nuisance they must specify them in their order. When failure to comply with an order will constitute a criminal offence this should cause no surprise. . .
Cited – Millard v Wastall 1898
The emission of black smoke from a factory chimney was a nuisance.
Held: When considering an order for the abatement of a nuisance, if the Justices considered it was necessary for things to be done to abate the nuisance, they had normally to . .
Cited – Whatling v Rees 1914
. .
Cited – McGillivray v Stephenson 1950
The court upheld a notice requiring a person to abate a nuisance constituting stinking pigs, which said ‘and for that purpose to remove the whole of the pigs from the premises, clear up the effect of their past presence, and cease for the future to . .
Cited – Salford City Council v McNally QBD 19-Dec-1974
cw Public Health – Nuisance – Complaint by tenant – Local authority’s compulsory acquisition of house in clearance area – Local authority postponing demolition as house capable of providing accommodation of . .
Cited – Regina v Fenny Stratford Justices ex parte Watney Mann Ltd 1976
An order had been made to abate a nuisance caused by loud noise from a juke box. The abatement notice as served required that the nuisance be abated ‘and the level of noise in [the premises] shall not exceed 70dB(A)’.
Held: The words quoted . .
Cited – East Northamptonshire District Council v Brian Fossett 1994
The case involved an allegation of noise, a nuisance at an all night rave. No works were required to abate the nuisance and whether the 1990 Act had created any fundamental change in the law, as the Council claims, was not raised. . .
Cited – Myatt v Teignbridge District Council 1994
In a noise nuisance abatement case, the court held that for an Abatement Notice to be sufficient there are two steps: ‘one is you need to know what you have done wrong and, secondly, what it is you are to do to put it right.’ The case here was of . .
Cited – Network Housing Association Ltd v Westminster City Council QBD 7-Nov-1994
An abatement notice was addressed by the respondent city council to freehold owners of tenanted premises, in respect of a noise source which it was out of their power to stop. This was noise from perfectly normal everyday living, which reached one . .
Cited – Sterling Homes v Birmingham City Council QBD 1996
The operations of a mammoth press by an industrial operator in close proximity to a residential block of which Sterling were freehold owners, caused a nuisance. The city council served on Sterling (not on the neighbouring industrial operator) an . .
Cited – Budd v Colchester Borough Council QBD 1996
This was a dog-barking case in which the Court had to consider an abatement notice. It was argued that a notice which did not specify the level of barking which constituted the nuisance and which did not specify precisely what was to be done to . .
Cited – Murdoch and Another v Glacier Metal Company Limited CA 19-Jan-1998
Excess noise by nearby factory above World Health Organisation level was not an actionable nuisance. It was a question for each factual situation. An allowance had to be made for the character of the neighbourhood. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137905
[2019] EWHC 443 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.634207
ECJ Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 91/271/EEC – Pollution and nuisance – Treatment of urban waste water – Articles 3, 5 and 6 – Failure to identify sensitive areas – Failure to implement more stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas
[2011] EUECJ C-220/10
European
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.444095
Nuisance abatement notice must state whether nuisance alleged is contrary to public health or common law.
Appeal against enforcement notice for ‘the crowing of cockerels and the chorus of waterfowl.’
Times 18-Nov-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 639
Environmental Protection Act 1990 80
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137584
The verb ‘discard’ in the Waste Framework Directive has a special and limited meaning which requires the materials to be subjected to a disposal or recovery operation.
Carnwath J said: ‘The general concept is now reasonably clear. The term discard is used in a broad sense equivalent to ‘get rid of’. The phrase get rid of’ is concerned with materials which have ceased to be required for their original purpose, normally because they are unsuitable, unwanted or surplus to requirements. That broad category is however limited by the context, which shows that the purpose is to control disposal and recovery of such material. Accordingly, materials which are to be reused (rather than finally disposed of) but which do not require any recovery operation before being put to their new use, are not treated as waste.’ and ‘Insofar as the discarded materials do not require any recovery operation, they are not treated as waste at all. Insofar as they do require recovery operations, they remain waste until those recovery operations are complete.’
Carnwath J
[1997] EWHC Admin 495, [1999] ENVLR 489
Council Directive 75/442/EEC, Trans-frontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994
England and Wales
Per incuriam – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 5 of 2000) CACD 6-Jun-2001
Waste products could become ‘controlled waste’ and subject to licensing procedures without there being a recovery or disposal operation being involved. A rendering process produced a condensate which the company wished to spread on farm land without . .
Limited – Castle Cement v Environment Agency Admn 22-Mar-2001
The court was asked ‘whether the burning of Cemfuel, as a fuel in the Ribblesdale and Ketton Cement Works operated by the Applicant (Castle), amounts to the burning of ‘hazardous waste’, as the Environment Agency has concluded, or to the burning of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137440
[1997] EWHC Admin 415
Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991 (SI 1991 No 472)
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137360
Authorisations had been properly granted for the building of the Thorp power station without holding a Public Enquiry.
Independent 08-Mar-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87785
Mr Bagshaw sought an order modifying the definitive map and statement to show a former mine track as a public right of way.
Held: A claimant seeking to establish a public path had to show evidence in support or that it was reasonable to make the allegation.
Owen J, referring to 53(3)(c)(i) said: ‘It is necessary to give some meaning to all the words used. Accordingly, there must be a difference between showing ‘that a right of way which is not shown in the map and statement subsists’ and showing that a right of way which is not shown in the map and statement ‘is reasonably alleged to subsist’. Accordingly the questions for the council and subsequently for the Secretary of State were: does the evidence produced by the claimant together with all the other evidence available show that either– (a) a right of way subsists? (I shall call this test ‘A’), or (b) it is reasonable to allege that a right of way subsists? (I shall call this test ‘B’). To answer either question must involve some evaluation of the evidence and a judgment upon that evidence. For the first of those possibilities to be answered in the affirmative, it will be necessary to show that on a balance of probabilities the right does exist. For the second possibility to be shown it will be necessary to show that a reasonable person, having considered all the relevant evidence available, could reasonably allege a right of way to subsist.’
Owen J
Times 06-May-1994, [1994] 68 P and CR 402
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53(3)(c)(I)
England and Wales
Cited – Todd, Bradley v The Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Admn 22-Jun-2004
Application was made to quash an order modifying the Council’s definitive map of public rights of way.
Held: Before the Secretary of State could confirm a Council’s modification of a right of way shown on the definitive map, where that . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Wales Ex Parte Emery CA 9-Jul-1997
The applicant had sought to have included in the definitive map, a local footpath, and now challenged refusal to include it.
Held: A public right of way may be created by dedication or it may be deemed after actual use by the public over . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87786
Knowledge of deposit of controlled waste was necessary to bring the section into application. It was not sufficient simply to be aware of a breach of the licence.
Times 28-Jan-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 73
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a)
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137018
[1996] EWHC Admin 345
Water Resources Act 1991 85(1)
Appeal from – Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136893
[1996] EWHC Admin 203
Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136751
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for a new football ground for Fulham Football club, saying that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been obtained, but was required.
Held: Where a planning application if completed would have a substantial effect on the environment, and an environmental impact assessment should have been first obtained, it was not possible to dispense with that assessment and to deem it to have been supplied where it was thought that the assessment would make no difference, or that the authority or secretary of state in fact had all the information which would have been provided. The Directive prescribed a particular procedure which was to be followed. In the absence of at least substantial compliance, the court should not exercise its discretion to validate retrospectively a breach of the Directive, even if satisfied that the result would have been the same.
Lord Bingham set out the Court’s discretion: ‘Even in a purely domestic context, the discretion of the court to do other than quash the relevant order or action where such excessive exercise of power is shown is very narrow. In the Community context, unless a violation is so negligible as to be truly de minimis and the prescribed procedure has in all essentials been followed, the discretion (if any exists) is narrower still: the duty laid on member states by article 10 of the EC Treaty, the obligation of national courts to ensure that Community rights are fully and effectively enforced, the strict conditions attached by article 2(3) of the Directive to exercise of the power to exempt and the absence of any power in the Secretary of State to waive compliance (otherwise than by way of exemption) with the requirements of the Regulations in the case of any urban development project which in his opinion would be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of the factors mentioned, all point towards an order to quash as the proper response to a contravention such as admittedly occurred in this case.’
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘A court is therefore not entitled retrospectively to dispense with the requirement of an EIA on the ground that the outcome would have been the same or that the local planning authority or Secretary of State had all the information necessary to enable them to reach a proper decision on the environmental issues. Although section 288(5)(b), in providing that the court ‘may’ quash an ultra vires planning decision, clearly confers a discretion upon the court, I doubt whether, consistently with its obligations under European law, the court may exercise that discretion to uphold a planning permission which has been granted contrary to the provisions of the Directive. To do so would seem to conflict with the duty of the court under article 10 (ex article 5) of the EC Treaty to ensure fulfilment of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Treaty. In classifying a failure to conduct a requisite EIA for the purposes of section 288 as not merely non-compliance with a relevant requirement but as rendering the grant of permission ultra vires, the legislature was intending to confine any discretion within the narrowest possible bounds. It is exceptional even in domestic law for a court to exercise its discretion not to quash a decision which has been found to be ultra vires: see Glidewell LJ in Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1990) 61 P and CR 343, 353. [Counsel for the Respondent] was in my opinion right to concede that nothing less than substantial compliance with the Directive could enable the planning permission in this case to be upheld.’
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Bingham
Times 07-Jul-2000, [2000] 3 WLR 420, [2001] 2 AC 603, [2000] UKHL 36, [2000] 3 All ER 897
House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Council Directive 85/337/EEC, Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1199), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288(5)
England and Wales
At First Instance – Dido Berkeley v Secretary of State for Environment Admn 26-Mar-1997
. .
Cited – Barker v London Borough of Bromley Admn 23-Nov-2001
The claimant challenged the grant of outline permission to develop the Crystal Palace, arguing that no Environmental Assessment had taken place. The need for one depended upon whether the directive had been properly incorporated into English Law. . .
Cited – Bown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .
Cited – Younger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 26-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to quash a planning decision on the basis that a screening decision had not been made.
Held: Though the procedures within the authority could have been bettered, there was no formal requirement for a screening option to . .
Cited – Pascoe v First Secretary of State and others Admn 27-Sep-2006
The claimant challenged a compulsory purchase order made under the 1993 Act on the grounds of underuse of properties in the area.
Held: The respondent’s decision had been made on the basis that there was underuse of a ‘predominant number’ of . .
Cited – Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2) QBD 31-Jul-2000
Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and . .
Cited – Edwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
Cited – Boggis and Another v Natural England CA 20-Oct-2009
Natural England appealed against the quashing of an SSSI.
Held: The notification of an SSSI was not the making of a plan as respects the land affected, but the flagging up of it. The real purpose of the proceedings was to allow the land owners . .
Cited – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Cited – Baker v Police Appeals Tribunal Admn 27-Mar-2013
The claimant a former police constable sought judicial review of a decision made by the tribunal, saying that it had had no jurisdiction to make it. The respondent tribunal, having now accepted that it had not had the power it exercised, being then . .
Cited – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135054
Europa Measures adopted by the Community institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Implementation of a directive without legislative action – Conditions – Existence of a general legal context which guarantees full application of the directive – Mere administrative practices inadequate. Approximation of laws – Protection of groundwater – Directive 80/68 – Need for precise transposition by the Member States. Measures adopted by the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Reliance on measures adopted by regional or local authorities – Permissibility – Limits.
C-131/88, [1991] EUECJ C-131/88, [1991 ECR 1-825
Cited – Vibixa Ltd, Polestar Jowetts Ltd v Komori UK Ltd and Another, Spectral Technology Ltd CA 9-May-2006
The claimants sought damages for damage to property alleging breach of statutory duty. The defendant said that the regulations were made under European not English law, and that the Secretary of State did not have power to make regulations under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.134871
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – EU action in the field of water policy – Directive 2000/60/EC – Article 4(1) – Environmental objectives relating to surface waters – Deterioration of the status of a body of surface water – Project for the development of a navigable waterway – Obligation of the Member States not to authorise a project that may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water – Decisive criteria for determining whether there is a deterioration of the status of a body of water
V. Skouris, P
C-461/13, [2015] EUECJ C-461/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:433
European
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.549987
Articles 8 to 12 of Directive 75/442 on waste cover all waste-disposal activities and do not impose any limitation relating to the legal status of the operator or the frequency or purpose of the activities concerned. Article 5 of the directive does not lay down any restrictive criteria concerning the ‘competent … Authorities to be responsible, in a given zone, for the planning, organization, authorization and supervision of waste-disposal operations’ which are to be established or designated by the member states and the latter are therefore unrestricted in their choice of such authorities. The permit provided for in article 8 of the directive is issued by those authorities and cannot be replaced by the consent of the owner or occupier of the land where the waste is discharged . An owner or occupier of land, as an operator tipping his own waste on that land, does not need a permit under article 8 but a measure subjecting him to such a requirement may be adopted as one of the necessary measures to be taken by the member states under article 4 of the directive. Subject to the usual limitations on the exercise of a discretionary power, the power enjoyed by the member states regarding organization of the supervision provided for in article 10 of the directive is qualified only by the requirement that the objectives of that directive, namely protection of human health and of the environment, must be complied with. A directive may not of itself impose obligations on an individual and a provision of a directive may not therefore be relied upon as such against such a person .
C-372/85, R-374/85, [1987] EUECJ R-374/85, [1987] ECR 2141
European
Cited – Derbyshire Waste Ltd v Blewett and Another CA 11-Nov-2004
Glapswell Colliery had closed. The owners sought to use it for waste disposal by landfill. The objector had obtained judicial review of the permission granted.
Held: The intention of the Landfill Directive was to discourage its use other than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.134282
The pursuer had let land to a company to a waste management. The defenders were responsible for licensing their activities. The land was mismanaged, and the pursuer now sought damages from the Council as to the cost of remediation of the land.
[2019] ScotCS CSOH – 5
The Waste Management
Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011
Scotland
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.634474
Whether escapes of waste water from a public sewerage system are ‘Directive waste’ within the scope of the Waste Framework Directive, and thus subject to the enforcement authority of the Environment Agency under section 33 of the 1990 Act.
Held: Sewage which escaped from a public sewer was controlled waste.
Lord Justice Carnwarth and Mr Justice Bean
[2008] EWHC 1763 (QB), Times 28-Aug-2008
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33, Council Directive 75/442/EEC of July 15, 1975 on waste
England and Wales
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.271314
Nelson J
[2006] EWHC 9 (QB), [2006] Env LR 32
Water Industry Act 1991, Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000
England and Wales
Appeal from – United Utilities Water Plc v Environment Agency for England and Wales CA 19-May-2006
. .
At First Instance – United Utilities Water Plc v Environment Agency for England and Wales HL 17-Oct-2007
The company appealed a finding that it could not process non-hazardous waste waste at one licensed site and move it to another for disposal.
Held: The treatment must form part of a process which results in a discarded rather than a recovered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238317
Use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons was properly banned for all purposes including fire fighting ones, and no sufficient reason for any exemption had been shown.
Times 22-Jul-1998, C-284/95, [1998] EUECJ C-284/95
Council regulation EC 3093/94 Substance depleting the Ozone Layer
European
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.88975
A bylaw, restricting fishing by reference to the size of the ship, was valid. The words must not be construed out of context of the whole Act, and in this case an ‘instrument’ used for fishing did not include the vessel itself.
Gazette 21-Apr-1999, Times 13-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 252
Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87363
The landowner sought to alter the fuel it used in a furnace at Thrislington, Durham, to a fuel which was constituted from waste. The council received a second opinion to the effect that the new fuel did not constitute a change in use. The objector appealed.
Held: The council had been properly advised. The fact that a use of material had additional purposes, did not necessarily create a second use for planning permission. It could, but whether it did was a question of fact and degree for the council sub-committee.
Lord Phillips MR referred to the caselaw and said: ‘West Bowers involved deciding whether a particular operation fell into one or both of two specific categories of operation. On the facts the Court of Appeal held that it fell into both. There is no difficulty in following the logic of this conclusion. The facts were such that an objective onlooker when asked what the operation involved might have said ‘digging a reservoir’ or ‘recovering gravel’ or both. The operation had two physical aspects the one the corollary of the other; a hole was dug; gravel was removed. Each aspect fell into a different planning category.
West Bowers recognised that one indivisible process could amount, for planning purposes, to two activities. It does not follow that the different aspects of a process always fall to be categorised as different operations or uses of land for planning purposes. Lord Kingsland did not suggest that disposing of petcoke was a distinct use of the land at Thrislington, although petcoke is a by-product of the oil industry that has all the features of waste, save that its qualities as a source of energy have become appreciated so that it is universally burnt for energy recovery. Lord Kingsland’s contention that disposing of waste is always a separate land use, regardless of the nature or manner of disposal, cannot be derived from West Bowers.’
Lord Phillips MR
Gazette 07-Jun-2001, Times 22-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 781, [2002] 1 PandCR 283
England and Wales
Considered – West Bowers Farm Products v Essex County Council CA 1985
Farmers sought to construct a reservoir for irrigation. To create the reservoir they would have to excavate substantial volumes of sand and gravel which would be sold on. The appellants contended that the extraction of the sand and gravel was an . .
Cited – Roberts and Another v South Gloucestershire Council CA 7-Nov-2002
The landowner appealed against the compensation awarded for the compulsory acquisition of his land for use as a road. The owners had been compensated only for its agricultural value, but said that it should have allowed for its value for minerals . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85994
There was no protection against self-incrimination where information was properly required by the Waste Regulation Authority to carry out its duties.
Times 09-Oct-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2279
Environmental Protection Act 1990 71(2)
England and Wales
Cited – C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
Appeal from – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81908
A smoke nuisance can be established on the basis of the smell of smoke alone. It was not necessary to establish the presence of visible smoke. Smoke primarily means visible smoke, but even in common parlance can include the smell. The statutory definition included soot, ash, grit and gritty particles. The smell related to the detection of smoke which constituted the offence.
Kennedy LJ, Butterfield J
Gazette 05-May-2000, Times 19-Apr-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 319
Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(b)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81047
Where a road or other development project would have a substantial impact on the environment, a law passed by a member state authorising the construction to proceed but which was in the absence of an impact assessment, was not in compliance with the Directive. It was not possible to bypass the procedure by use of special statutory powers. The Directive did not apply where its purposes were satisfied by a statutory process, but that implied the need for that process to produce a similar investigation.
Times 05-Oct-2000, [2000] ECR I-6917, [2000] EUECJ C-287/98
European
Cited – HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
The government planned to promote a large scale rail development (HS2), announcing this in a command paper. The main issues, in summary, were, first, whether it should have been preceded by strategic environmental assessment, under the relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80973
The court emphasised the need for the member states to implement the Directive to reduce pollution from the listed substances. States should also state how they intended to test the implementation and also the time scale for implementation
Gazette 09-Sep-1998, Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 15/98, 14, C-232/95, [1998] EUECJ C-232/95
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80243
When assessing the penalty to be imposed on a member state for failing to comply with a judgement of the court the court had to look at the duration of the breach, its seriousness, and its ability to pay. Here a fine of 20.000 Euros per day was imposed upon Greece for failing to control discharges into the sea in breach of court orders over several years.
The court described a waste management plan within the meaning of Article 7 of the Directive as ‘a comprehensive programme with a view to attaining certain objectives’.
Times 07-Jul-2000, C-387/97, [2000] ECR I-5047, [2000] EUECJ C-387/97
Cited – Regina v Daventry District Council ex parte Thornby Farms Admn 28-Jul-2000
The council granted licences for the disposal of waste animal carcasses by incineration. The objectors said the council had failed to take note of art 4 of the directive, and that as clinical waste alternative regimes applied.
Held: Animal . .
Cited – Derbyshire Waste Ltd v Blewett and Another CA 11-Nov-2004
Glapswell Colliery had closed. The owners sought to use it for waste disposal by landfill. The objector had obtained judicial review of the permission granted.
Held: The intention of the Landfill Directive was to discourage its use other than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79301
The council tenant plaintiff alleged a statutory nuisance against the council in the form of condensation, damp and mould in his flat. When it came to the hearing the damp had abated. The magistrates asked whether it was likely to recur. The council replied that they had offered to install heaters in the property which would deal with the problem, but the plantiff had refused saying that gas-central heating would be cheaper. They therefore said that responsibility for any recurrence would lie with the tenant. The tenant appealed saying that the defence allowed, that the council was ‘not the person whose act or default or sufferance gave rise to the nuisance or its continuance.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. A defendant can avoid liability for a nuisance by pointing out the genuine originator of the nuisance.
McKinnon J
Times 09-Mar-1995, (1996) 28 HLR 747
Environmental Protection Act 1990 82, Public Health Act 1936
Cited – Warner v Lambeth London Borough Council QBD 26-Mar-1984
A complaint of statutory nuisance laid before the magistrates must contain even if in summary form, similar details as would appear in an abatement notice, including the capacity in which the defendant is served and the steps required to be taken to . .
Mentioned – Robb v Dundee City Council SCS 13-Feb-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78913
A mutual failure to abide by a treaty did not discharge it; The performance of the 1977 Treaty was judged by modern environmental standards.
Times 31-Oct-1997
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78932
The local authority served a noise nuisance abatement notice upon the respondents regarding their plant room. The notice required abatement and a non-repetition. The notice was not specific as to the works required to be undertaken. It was held that the notice was indeed insufficiently specific. Although it was possible to add to the notice specification requirements contained in an accompanying letter, it was advisable to lock the two together explicitly. The notice required works but did not specify what they were and was invalid.
Gazette 07-Jan-2000
Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995, Environmental Protection Act 1990 80
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78852
Where a development which might have significant environmental impact was proposed it was necessary to ensure that an environmental impact assessment had been carried out. It was not open to member states to exempt some types of development.
Gazette 09-Sep-1998, C-81/96, Wcj/Cfi Bulletin 16/98, 28
Council Directive 90/313/EEC Freedom of Access to information on the environment.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78743
The parties disputed discharges from a sewer outfall into the Stourbridge canal which had been constructed by a regional water authority in about 1976, under the previous statutory regime. The relevant outfall was therefore already in use at the transfer date pursuant to a right enjoyed by the regional water authorities under the Public Health Act 1936 and transferred to the privatised sewerage undertakers under the Water Act 1989. The powers given to sewerage undertakers did not include a power, either express or implied for a sewerage contractor to lay sewage outfall over land belonging to someone else without their consent. Express powers were given for certain acts including the laying of pipes, but not for discharges. This contrasted with express powers for water undertakers which did include outfalls. No implicit power could be inferred; this was neither necessary, and nor could sufficient precision be achieved.
The Water Industry Act had to be construed as a coherent scheme in its own right, without any a priori assumption that it was intended to reproduce everything in the previous statute law.
Chadwick LJ summarised the position: ‘The fallacy, as it seems to me, lies in the underlying (but unspoken) premise that Parliament must have intended that sewerage undertakers should have facilities to discharge (which, plainly, they do require in order to carry out their functions) without paying for those facilities. Whether or not that premise could have been supported in the context of a public authority charged with functions imposed in the interests of public health, it cannot be supported, as it seems to me, in the context of legislation enacted following a decision to privatise the water industry.’
Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Keene LJJ
Times 23-Mar-2001, Gazette 29-Mar-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001, [2001] 3 WLR 613, [2002] Ch 25, [2001] EWCA Civ 276, [2002] EHLR 1, [2001] 3 All ER 673, [2001] Env LR 45, [2001] NPC 53
Water Industry Act 1991 159, Public Health Act 1936, Water Act 1989
England and Wales
Appeal from – British Waterways Board v Severn Trent Water Ltd ChD 26-Oct-1999
A water company may have the implied power to discharge surface run-off water from sewers into canals. The powers and duties of water companies and sewerage undertakers were different both under statute and in general. The power to lay a run-off . .
Cited – The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and Another v United Utilities Water Plc SC 2-Jul-2014
The court was asked: ‘whether a sewerage undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 has a statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses such as the Respondents’ canals without the consent of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78652
Contamination of land by the overflow of radioactive materials from a pond, led to damages for the cost of repair, and also the permanent diminution of the value in the land from physical damage.
Held: The Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants from the order of the trial judge (Carnwath J) awarding the plaintiffs damages for the breach of duty imposed by section 7(1)(a) of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 on the licensee of a nuclear site to ensure that no occurrence involving nuclear matter caused damage to any property of any person other than the licensee. Damage within the Act occurred if there was some alteration in the physical characteristics of the land caused by radioactive properties which rendered it less useful or less valuable. Aldous LJ said that the addition of plutonium to the topsoil rendered the characteristics of the marshland different and, further, that the result of the addition was that the marshland became less useful and less valuable. The plaintiffs’ land was less valuable because the estate was unsaleable until the contaminated soil had been removed and less useful because the level of contamination was such that the topsoil of the marsh had to be excavated and removed from the site because the level of radioactivity exceeded that which was allowed by the regulations. In short, the cause of action arose because the amenity or utility of the plaintiffs’ land was impaired by contamination from the plutonium.
Simon Brown, Aldous, Chadwick LJJ
Times 16-Jun-1998, Gazette 22-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 945, [1999] 2 WLR 295, [1999] Ch 289, [1998] 3 All ER 385, [1998] EGCS 93, [1999] Env LR 22
Nuclear Installations Act 1965 7(1)(a)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence ChD 11-Dec-1996
Damages for escape of nuclear waste to include diminution of land value. Radioactive pollution of land following such an overflow is physical damage. . .
Appealed to – Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence ChD 11-Dec-1996
Damages for escape of nuclear waste to include diminution of land value. Radioactive pollution of land following such an overflow is physical damage. . .
Cited – Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Cited – Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78452
Waste products could become ‘controlled waste’ and subject to licensing procedures without there being a recovery or disposal operation being involved. A rendering process produced a condensate which the company wished to spread on farm land without a licence. The company had argued that no recovery process was involved, and therefore it was not waste within the definition. The Agency appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The judgement of Carnwath in Mayer Parry appeared to be incorrect. Whether material was required to be controlled could not depend upon the manner in which a particular holder of it intended to store it. It must depend upon the nature of the material itself. The court declined to attempt to define ‘waste’, but confirmed that ‘recovery or disposal operations are not required before a substance can be ‘controlled waste’.’
Lord Woolf CJ, Douglas Brown, Astill JJ
Times 06-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1077
Criminal Justice Act 1972 36, Environmental Protection Act 1990 33 34(1)(a), Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, Council Directive 75/442/EEC
Per incuriam – Regina v Environment Agency ex parte Dockgrange Limited and Mayer Parry Limited Admn 22-May-1997
The verb ‘discard’ in the Waste Framework Directive has a special and limited meaning which requires the materials to be subjected to a disposal or recovery operation.
Carnwath J said: ‘The general concept is now reasonably clear. The term . .
Cited – Castle Cement v Environment Agency Admn 22-Mar-2001
The court was asked ‘whether the burning of Cemfuel, as a fuel in the Ribblesdale and Ketton Cement Works operated by the Applicant (Castle), amounts to the burning of ‘hazardous waste’, as the Environment Agency has concluded, or to the burning of . .
Cited – Euro Tombesi, Santella etc ECJ 25-Jun-1997
ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 . .
Cited – Inter-Environnement Wallonie v Region Wallonne ECJ 18-Dec-1997
ECJ Member States are required to refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the results prescribed by a Directive, even though the date for its implementation has not yet expired.
The . .
Cited – Arco Chemie Nederland v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening in Milieubeheer ECJ 15-Jun-2000
ECJ Environment – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Concept of ‘waste’.
Advocate General Alber said: ‘The concept of waste underlying Community law on waste is defined in article 1(a) of Directive . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78014
[1864] EngR 810, (1864) 5 B and S 115, (1864) 122 ER 775
England and Wales
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.282524
(1970) 69 LGR 103
Public Health Act 1936, Noise Abatement Act 1960
Cited – Manley and Another v New Forest District Council Admn 6-Nov-2007
The defendants appealed by way of case stated against their convictions for noise nuisance for their husky kennels – ‘Howling Dog Kennels’. They said that it was impractical, both for animal welfare and cost reasons further to limit the noise.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.271240
The defendant maintained two lagoons on his land into which, pursuant to an agreement, the owners of adjoining land discharged effluent. The lagoons developed leaks which allowed the effluent to escape into the river.
Held: The escape had not been caused by anything which the defendant had done. There was no ‘positive act’ on his part. The effluent came onto the land by gravity and found its way into the stream by gravity ‘with no act on his part whatever:’
Lord Widgery CJ
[1975] 1 WLR 988, [1975] 2 All ER 113
England and Wales
Disapproved – Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
Restricted to its facts – National Rivers Authority v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd HL 21-Nov-1994
The defendant sewerage undertaker received sewage, treated it in filter beds and discharged the treated liquid into the river. One night someone unlawfully discharged a solvent called iso-octanol into the sewer. It passed through the sewage works . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190103
Oil was supplied to Williams Motors by Autobrec Oils and there was spillage from an offset fuel pipe out of sight of the delivery driver. Some of the spilt oil got into the storm drainage, and thus into a canal. Williams Motors were charged under section 32(1)(a) with causing or knowingly permitting the discharge into relevant waters. The magistrates were not satisfied that they had caused the pollution.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal failed. Lloyd LJ said: ‘The question is not what was foreseeable by the respondents or anyone else: the question is whether any act on the part of the respondents caused the pollution.’
Lloyd LJ
Times 05-Dec-1988
Control of Pollution Act 1974 32(1)(a)
England and Wales
Applied – Alphacell Ltd v Woodward HL 3-May-1972
The defendant operated a paper manufacturing plant which involved maintaining tanks of polluting liquid near the river, so that pollution would occur if they overflowed. There were pumps which ought normally to have drawn off the liquid and . .
Approved – National Rivers Authority v Wright Engineering Co Ltd QBD 19-Nov-1993
Escape following vandalism was not ’caused’ by the company. It was not foreseeable. Although there had been past incidents of vandalism at the defendant’s premises, ‘the vandalism involved was not reasonably foreseeable because it was out of all . .
Cited – Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
Cited – Express Ltd v The Environment Agency QBD 15-Jul-2004
The dairy appealed its conviction for allowing cream to enter a brook from the land of its customer.
Held: Polluting matter did not need to be itself noxious or poisonous, it was enough that it stained or tinted the water as did cream. Though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190107
[2019] EWCA Crim 231
Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.634200
Secretary of State was under no duty to issue regulations to protect against low level electromagnetic radiation.
Independent 04-Oct-1994
England and Wales
Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Duddridge and Others CA 20-Oct-1995
The Maastricht environmental commitment imposed no binding obligation on a government of itself. The unproven possibility of a medical effect of radiation from power supply lines was no justification for new rules. . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Duddridge and Others CA 20-Oct-1995
The Maastricht environmental commitment imposed no binding obligation on a government of itself. The unproven possibility of a medical effect of radiation from power supply lines was no justification for new rules. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87952
An order restricting the number of night flights but without apportioning those numbers between different categories was valid.
Gazette 17-Apr-1996, Times 21-Mar-1996
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87961
It was inappropriate to make an interim order imposing obligations pending an ECJ ruling.
Times 10-Feb-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.87801
A churning up by a boat of mud and silt already present on a river bed was no offence.
Times 21-Nov-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.84189
The decision to refuse a retrospective licence for the importation of antique ivory, was one for the Department of Environment Transport and the Regions, and not one for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. An appeal against a refusal could not therefore lie to the VAT Tribunal, even though they had been seized by the Commissioners.
Times 14-Jun-2000, Gazette 22-Jun-2000
Commission Regulation EC/939/97 (OJ 1997 LI40/9) Art 8(3)
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79395
A water company may have the implied power to discharge surface run-off water from sewers into canals. The powers and duties of water companies and sewerage undertakers were different both under statute and in general. The power to lay a run-off pipe might be held to imply a power to discharge what was run off through it.
Times 26-Oct-1999, Gazette 03-Nov-1999
Appeal from – British Waterways Board v Severn Trent Water Ltd CA 23-Mar-2001
The parties disputed discharges from a sewer outfall into the Stourbridge canal which had been constructed by a regional water authority in about 1976, under the previous statutory regime. The relevant outfall was therefore already in use at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78654
Inconsistencies in consultation paper not for judicial review; they were part of a political process.
Times 11-May-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.87962
Richards J
[2005] EWHC 538 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.224096
Environment – Free movement of goods – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62/EC – Deposit and return obligations for non-reusable packaging that depend on the overall percentage of reusable packaging.
C-309/02
European
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220613
Lord Loreburn LC said: ‘But what the appellants say is this: Permit us to prove that these burns are sewers, and if we can prove that they are sewers, surely it cannot be an offence to pour sewage matter into the sewers. My Lords, that is merely asking leave to prove that they have . . committed in an aggravated degree the very offence with which they are charged.’
Lord Loreburn LC
[1910] AC 286
Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876 3
Scotland
Applied – George Legge and Son Ltd v Wenlock Corporation HL 1938
The question was whether the status of a natural stream could be changed to that of a sewer by the unlawful discharge for a long period of sewage into the stream. The claimant asserted that a right by way of an easement could be acquired despite the . .
Cited – Bakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others HL 1-Apr-2004
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.195479