Category: Environment

In re All Saints, Hough on the Hill: ConC 28 Nov 2001

Consideration of Effects of Proposed Works

The faculty petitioners sought permission to erect floodlighting on the church.
Held: the petitioners must show that they had considered the effects of their proposal on local bats. The chancellor, when giving his decision, had to consider in order whether the proposed works were reasonable, then their effect on the character of the church as a building of special architectural and historical interest and on other community interests. Last, he should consider the proportionality of the proposal, looking at the losses against the benefits accruing.

Peter Collier QC
Gazette 01-Feb-2002, Times 01-Feb-2002
England and Wales

Ecclesiastical, Environment

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.167522

Save Historic Newmarket Ltd and Others v Forest Heath District Council and Others: Admn 25 Mar 2011

Objectors sought to quash the respondents core planning strategy, saying that it would damage the particular character of the town and horseracing inustry based there. They alleged a failure to carry out a proper strategic environmental assessment and that since some elements had only been published after the consultation, some consultees had not been given opportunity to comment.
Held: The claim succeeded. In its desire to avoid making the report specific to one possible site, the report had been written in such a way that: ‘It was not possible for the consultees to know from it what were the reasons for rejecting any alternatives to the urban development where it was proposed or to know why the increase in the residential development made no difference. The previous reports did not properly give the necessary explanations and reasons and in any event were not sufficiently summarised nor were the relevant passages identified in the final report. There was thus a failure to comply with the requirements of the Directive.’

Collins J
[2011] EWHC 606 (Admin)
Bailii
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 113, Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No.1633)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Seaport Investments Ltd and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 13-Nov-2007
An authority’s environmental assessment and the draft plan must operate together so that consultees can consider each in the light of the other. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, European

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.430851

Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Pesticide Action Network Europe (Pan Europe) v European Commission: ECJ 8 Oct 2013

ECJ Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the first authorisation of the placing on the market of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ – Partial refusal of access – Risk of an adverse effect on the commercial interests of a natural or legal person – Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 – Overriding public interest – Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 – Directive 91/414/EEC

N J Forwood, P
T-545/11, [2013] EUECJ T-545/11
Bailii
European

Information, Environment

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.516354

Gruber v Unabhangiger Verwaltungssenat fur Karnten, etc: ECJ 16 Apr 2015

gruberECJ201504

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 2011/92/EU – Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment – Construction of a retail park – Binding effect of an administrative decision not to carry out an environmental impact assessment – No public participation

T. von Danwitz, P
C-570/13, [2015] EUECJ C-570/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:231
Bailii
Directive 2011/92/EU

European, Environment, Planning

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.545444

Fish Legal v The Information Commissioner United Utilities, Yorkshire Water And Southern Water: ECJ 5 Sep 2013

fish_icUUECJ092013

ECJ Opinion – Access to environmental information – Obligation incumbent upon public authorities – ‘Natural or legal person performing public administrative functions under national law’ – Natural or legal person ‘under the control’ of the State or of a body performing public functions – Autonomous concept of European Union law

Cruz Villalon AG
C-279/12, [2013] EUECJ C-279/12, [2013] EUECJ C-279/12
Bailii, Bailii
Directive 2003/4/EC

European, Information, Environment

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.515163

Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others: SC 15 Dec 2010

Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only at prohibitive expense. The costs officers asked how the principle should be applied.
Held: Any limitation to be applied to a party’s costs was to be at the direction of the court only. The task and jurisdiction of the costs officers was limited to those set out in the Supreme Court Rules 2009.
Lord Hope said: ‘The Supreme Court is a creature of statute. But it has inherited all the powers that were vested in the House of Lords as the ultimate court of appeal. So it has the same powers as the House had to correct any injustice caused by an earlier order of the House or this court. It would however be more consistent with the principle which Lord Browne-Wilkinson described to say that the power is available to correct any injustice, however it may have arisen . . ‘

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Dyson
[2010] UKSC 57, [2011] 1 WLR 79, [2010] NPC 125, [2011] 1 All ER 785, [2011] 1 EG 64, [2011] Env LR 13
Bailii, Bailii Summary
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998, Supreme Court Rules 2009
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Edwards, Regina (on the Application Of) v Environment Agency and others Admn 19-Apr-2005
. .
Cited – Edwards and Another v The Environment Agency Others CA 27-Jun-2006
. .
At HL – 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 – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Environment Agency and Others CA 19-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Environment Agency and Others CA 19-Jul-2006
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Austin and Others v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimants appealed against refusal of a Group Litigation Order (GLO). Over 500 parties wished to claim in nuisance caused by open cast mining operations conducted by the defendants.
Held: The appeals failed. The making of a GLO is a matter . .
Reference – Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
SC Reference – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2) SC 11-Dec-2013
The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to . .
At SC (1) – Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
At SC – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 12-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition . .
AT SC (1) – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 13-Feb-2014
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters – Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Costs, Environment, European

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.427164

Friends of Basildon Golf Course v Basildon District Council and Another: Admn 23 Jan 2009

The council owned land on which it ran a golf course. It set out to privatise it and sought interest. An application was made for planning permission. The applicants objected to the planning permission, saying that the Environmental Impact Assessment was inadequate.
Held: The court felt able to accept oral evidence despite it being an application for judicial review. The examination of the screening option was complete and did not need to be revisited. There was no statutory duty on the respondent to consult the county authority even though it wised to be consulted.

Wyn Williams J
[2009] EWHC 66 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Prescription of County Matters) (England) Regulations 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Swale Borough Council, ex parte Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 1991
A party seeking a judicial review has a duty to go ahead very quickly. The court considered the need for an environmental assessment in respect of the proposed development. . .
Confirmed – Regina (Fernback and Others) v Harrow London Borough Council QBD 15-May-2001
The local planning authority adopted a screening opinion that proposed development was not development requiring an EIA under the 1999 Regulations. About a year later it granted planning permission for the proposed development. Local residents . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Ltd CA 9-Oct-2002
The applicant sought a judicial review of a grant of planning permission. She said that in the considerable time gap between the decision in principle, and the decision notice, several elements had changed requiring the decision to be reconsidered. . .
Cited – Barker, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Bromley HL 6-Dec-2006
The House was asked whether the 1988 Regulations properly implemented the Directive so as to require environmental impact assessments where the developer first obtained outline permission and then approval of reserved matters, but the need for an . .
Cited – Anderson and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v City of York Council Admn 13-Jun-2005
. .
Cited – Regina (B) v Merton London Borough Council Admn 14-Jul-2003
The authority had to decide the age of the applicant, an asylum seeker, in order to decide whether a duty was owed to him under the Act. He complained that the procedure adopted was unfair. The 2002 Act did not apply to persons under 18, and he . .
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 – South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, Judicial Review

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.280138

Clientearth v European Commission: ECJ 13 Sep 2013

clientearth_ec092013

ECJ Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Studies received by the Commission concerning the transposition of directives on the environment – Partial refusal of access – Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits – Specific and individual assessment – Compatibility with the Aarhus Convention – Overriding public interest – Consequences of exceeding the period for the adoption of an express decision – Extent of the obligation actively to disseminate environmental information

H. Kanninen P
T-111/11, [2013] EUECJ T-111/11
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
Citing:
See Also – ClientEarth v European Commission ECFI 13-Nov-2012
ECFI Actions for annulment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Implied refusal of access – Period allowed for commencing proceedings – Delay – Manifest inadmissibility . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Information, Environment

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.515263

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 justices found that Wincanton retrieved unwanted electrical goods from retailers who received them from customers buying new goods. Wincanton sorted the items into those which were functioning or capable of repair and those which were not. Those in the first category were offered for sale. Thorn inspected items in the first category, made their selection and took them to their workshops for repair or refurbishment as necessary. They were then offered to the public for sale. Any item found to be beyond economical repair was disposed of to a licensed waste carrier. The justices found that no hazardous waste was stored at Thorn’s premises.
The Environment Agency argued that the justices could not properly have concluded that the items selected by Thorn were not waste. First, on the evidence they were undoubtedly waste when they were discarded by their owners on their purchase of new goods. Second, they remained waste until repaired or refurbished for resale.
Held: The court considered ARCO and OSS Moses LJ pointed out that the question at issue in those cases was whether something which was waste had ceased to be waste, and continued: ‘The question whether something has ceased to be waste is not determined by considering whether those subjecting it to the process of reclamation intends to discard it or not, because if that was the question, then undoubtedly it would cease to be waste at the moment when those subjecting it to such a process had the intention to reuse it. Rather, the question of whether something which is undoubtedly waste ceases to be waste is determined by whether the cycle of repair or restoration is complete. To that extent I agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of the Environment Agency . .’

Moses LJ, Blake J
[2009] Env LR 10, [2009] PTSR 906, [2009] JPL 597, [2008] EWHC 2595 (Admin)
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – OSS Group Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Environment Agency and others CA 28-Jun-2007
Once lubricating oil had been processed into fuel oil suitable for burning, it ceased to be waste so as to require it to be handled and stored as waste.
Held: Carnwath LJ discussed the meaning of the term ‘discards or intends . . to discard’. . .

Cited by:
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.
Environment

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.277538

Commission v Italy: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

ECJ Opinion – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 260 TFEU – Failure to comply with judgments of the Court of Justice – Commission v Italy (C-135/05, EU:C:2007:250) and Commission v Greece (C-502/03, EU:C:2005:592) – Law on waste – Illegal landfills – Closure – Clean-up – Renewed permit pursuant to Directive 99/31/EC – Financial penalties – Imposition of a periodic penalty payment and a lump sum payment – Reduction of the periodic penalty payment in the event of partial compliance

Kokott AG
C-196/13, [2014] EUECJ C-196/13 – O, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2162, [2014] EUECJ C-196/13
Bailii, Bailii
European

Environment

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.536489

Evan Jones and Another, Regina v: CACD 2011

Surplus soil and subsoil from a pipeline excavation was hauled by the appellants to other land where it was tipped. The hauliers were convicted of depositing controlled waste contrary to section 33(1) of the 1990 Act. The complaint was that the judge had misdirected the jury by saying: ‘In law, an intention to pass on to another that material for that other to use it, nor even an intention to sell, does not amount to such alteration of status by way of intended use as to remove the material from the category of waste. It remains waste in the hands of the haulier up to and including this deposit of it. Further, it remains waste thereafter unless and until some event happens which you can say there is a sufficient proportion to have altered it.’
Held: The jury had been misdirected. Toulson LJ explained: ‘In our judgment the correct analysis is, as was put by Davis J in argument and is supported by paragraph 36 of the judgment in W, C and C, that at the time when B is about to deposit the material on C’s land, the conduct of B in bringing the material to that point, coupled with the purpose of C in receiving the material, is capable of bringing about a change in the status of the material for the purposes of the relevant statutory regime, so that at that time the material will have ceased to be waste, subject to the nature of the material and subject to the nature of the intended reuse and its potential environmental impact. Accordingly, we accept the submission that the judge’s direction was a misdirection.’

Toulson LJ, Davis J and HH Judge Bevan
[2011] EWCA Crim 3294
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Considered – W, C and C, Regina v CACD 11-May-2010
The prosecutor appealed against a finding of no case to answer. The defendants were accused in relation to the deposit on farm land of soil and sub-soil excavated during construction works on other land. The defendants included the works manager and . .

Cited by:
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.
Crime, Environment

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.464927

Amia SpA, in liquidation v Provincia Regionale di Palermo: ECJ 24 May 2012

amia_ECJ2012

ECJ Environment – Landfill of waste – Directive 1999/31/EC – Special levy on the disposal of solid waste in landfills – Landfill operator subject to that levy – Operating costs of a landfill – Directive 2000/35/EC – Default interest – Obligations of the national court

J-C Bonichot P
C-97/11, [2012] EUECJ C-97/11
Bailii
Directive 2000/35/EC

European, Environment

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.460202

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 required by the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (‘the SEA Directive’), and that that the scope of the public inquiry should have included the question whether the Fastlink was required, under common law principles of procedural fairness. His claim had also been rejected on the basis that he had not had a sufficient personal interest.
Held: The appeal was rejected. The SEA and EIA Directives require environmental assessments to be carried out in different but mutually complementary circumstances. The SEA Directive is concerned with the environmental effects of ‘plans and programmes’ which set the framework for future development consent of ‘projects’. The EIA Directive is concerned with the environmental impact of specific ‘projects’.
The Fastlink was not a modification triggering the consultation requirements of the SEA Directive. The WPR was a specific ‘project’ undertaken following the MTS, and the Fastlink was a modification of that project, rendering it subject to the EIA Directive’s requirements instead.

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
[2012] UKSC 44, UKSC 2012/0098, [2013] 1 CMLR 28, [2013] PTSR 51, [2013] JPL 323, 2012 SLT 1211, [2013] Env LR 16, 2012 GWD 34-689
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, Directive 2001/42/EC, Directive 85/337/EEC Environmental Assessment Directive, The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Earth Walloon ASBL v Walloon Region; Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v Walloon Region ECJ 4-Mar-2010
ECJ Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment – Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – . .
Appeal from – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SCS 29-Feb-2012
The reclaimer challenged the making of several orders redesignating roads around the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. . .
Cited – Inter-Environnement Bruxelles v Gouvernement de la Region de Bruxelles-Capitale ECJ 17-Nov-2011
ECJ Opinion – French Text – Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment – Applicability of the Directive in a proceeding to repeal all or part of a plan of . .
At Outer House – Walton and Others v The Scottish Ministers SCS 11-Aug-2011
Outer House – Opinion . .
Cited – Valciukiene And Others v Pakruojo ECJ 22-Sep-2011
ECJ Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Plans which determine the use of small areas at local level – Article 3(3) – Documents relating to land . .
Cited – Ealing Corporation v Jones CA 1959
An enforcement notice served by the local planning authority was quashed by an inferior court. The authority sought to appeal pursuant to provisions which allowed a right of appeal to ‘any person aggrieved’.
Held: Assuming the words ‘any . .
Cited – Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 7-Feb-1980
Practical Realities of Planning Decisions
The House considered planning procedures adopted on the construction of two new stretches of motorway, and in particular as to whether the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in refusing to allow objectors to the scheme to cross-examine the . .
Cited – Ex parte Sidebotham; In re Sidebotham CA 1880
James LJ said: ‘but the words ‘person aggrieved’ do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A ‘person aggrieved’ must be a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a . .
Cited – The Attorney-General of The Gambia v N’Jie PC 3-May-1961
(West Africa) Lord Denning said: ‘The words ‘person aggrieved’ are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busybody who is interfering in things which do not concern him; but . .
Cited – Arsenal Football Club Ltd v Ende, Smith HL 1978
It was said that the Arsenal football stadium was under-valued in local rating list. The House was asked who might be a ‘person aggrieved’ and entitled to complain about the under-valuation of a hereditament in the same area.
Held: A person . .
Cited – Cook v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 1989
The council had public duties to perform in the maintenance of a suitable taxi service and a policy that it was seeking to implement.
Held: It could feel aggrieved by a decision adverse to the stand it was attempting to enforce in respect of . .
Cited – North East Fife District Council v Secretary of State for Scotland 1992
The court was asked as to the standing of the applicants to make their application. Lord President Hope said: ‘But in my opinion the fact that all three appellants were present at, and made representations at the public inquiry is sufficient for . .
Cited – Lardner v Renfrew District Council 1997
Rodger LP said that when construing the phrase ‘a person aggrieved’ it was necessary to have regard to the particular legislation involved, and the nature of the grounds on which the appellant claims to be aggrieved. . .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1976
A local authority had made a compulsory purchase order which was challenged and an inquiry was held. The inspector, after the conclusion of the hearing, conducted his own inspection of the premises as a result of which he concluded that the . .
Cited – George v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1979
The claimant challenged a decision made under the 1946 Act.
Held: It will only be upon rare occasions that the interests of justice will require that leave be given for cross-examination of deponents on their affidavits in applications for . .
Cited – Wells v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions ECJ 7-Jan-2004
ECJ Directive 85/337/EEC – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – National measure granting consent for mining operations without an environmental impact assessment being carried out – . .
Cited – Berkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others HL 11-May-2000
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
Cited – Regina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte Argyll Group plc CA 14-Mar-1986
Weighing Interest of Seeker of Judicial Review
The court recast in simpler language the provision in section 75 empowering the Secretary of State to make a merger reference to the Commission: ‘where it appears to him that it is or may be the fact that arrangements are in progress or in . .
Cited – Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .
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 – 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 – Whitworth v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 20-Dec-2010
The claimants challenged the making of an order confirming a public right of way over their farmland.
Held: Where an order is subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State, the quashing of the ‘order’ relates to the original order as made . .

Cited by:
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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.

Environment, European

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.464932

Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited: HL 4 Dec 2003

The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The damages were restricted to the statutory ones. The defendant was regulated under the 1991 Act by the Director-General, who had enforcement powers. By 18(8), when a contravention occurred the means of enforcement provided was to be the sole remedy. The water company was not a normal land owner, but rather operated by virtue of the statutory scheme, and the statutory remedies excluded the common law ones. ‘Direct and serious interference of this nature with a person’s home is prima-facie a violation of a person’s right to respect for his private and family life (Article 8) and of his entitlement to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (Article 1 of the First Protocol). The burden of justifying this interference rests with Thames Water. ‘ Even so, the claim under human rights law failed because of the existence of the statutory remedy. That scheme struck a reasonable balance. Parliament had acted well within its bounds as policy maker.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote
[2003] UKHL 66, Times 05-Dec-2003, Gazette 29-Jan-2004, [2004] 2 AC 42, [2003] 50 EGCS 95, [2003] 3 WLR 1603, [2004] 1 All ER 135, [2003] NPC 150, 91 Con LR 1, [2004] BLR 1, [2004] UKHRR 253, [2004] Env LR 25, [2004] HRLR 10
House of Lords, Bailii
Water Industry Act 1991 18(8) 94(1), European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Thames Water Utilities Limited v Marcic CA 7-Feb-2002
The claimant owned land over which sewage and other water had spilled from the appellant’s sewage works. His claim having been dismissed under Rylands v Fletcher, and there being no statutory means of obtaining compensation, the judge was asked to . .
Cited – Robinson v Workington Corporation CA 1897
Mr Robinson’s houses were damaged by water overflowing from the council’s public sewers. The sewers were adequate until new houses were built. He claimed damages in respect of the council’s failure to build a new sewer of sufficient dimensions to . .
Cited – Pasmore v Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council HL 1898
Where an Act creates an obligation, and enforces the performance in a specified manner, it is a general rule that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner.
Earl of Halsbury LC said: ‘The principle that where a specific remedy is given . .
Cited – Hesketh v Birmingham Corporation 1924
The court rejected a claim for nuisance where a claim was available under the 1875 Act. . .
Cited – Smeaton v Ilford Corporation ChD 1954
Overloading caused the corporation’s foul sewer to erupt through a manhole and discharge ‘deleterious and malodorous matter’ into Mr Smeaton’s garden.
Held: The authority were not liable. e connections with the sewer and to discharge their . .
Cited – Goldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
Cited – Leakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
Cited – Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council CA 22-Feb-2000
Land owned by the defendant was below a cliff, at the top of which was the claimant’s hotel. The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion.
Held: The owner of . .
Cited – Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001
The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property.
Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . .
Cited – Hatton and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-2003
More Night Flights No Infringement of Family Life
The claimants complained that the respondent had acted to infringe their rights. They were residents living locally to Heathrow Airport. They claimed the respondent had increased the number of night flights, causing increased noise, but without . .
Cited – Baron v Portslade Urban District Council 1900
The local authority was held liable for omitting to clean a sewer. The existence of a procedure for the enforcement of statutory duties did not exclude common law remedies for common law torts, such as a nuisance arising from failure to keep a sewer . .
Cited – Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd v British Celanese Ltd CA 1953
The plaintiff brought an action for nuisance against the local authority for having discharged insufficiently treated effluent into the river Derwent.
Held: The plaintiffs: ‘have a perfectly good cause of action for nuisance, if they can show . .
Cited – Buckley v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Sep-1996
The Commission had concluded, by a narrow majority, that the measures taken by the respondent in refusing planning permission and enforcing planning orders were excessive and disproportionate, even allowing a margin of appreciation enjoyed by the . .
At First Instance – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd TCC 14-May-2001
. .
At First instance – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd TCC 10-Jul-2001
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Lough and others v First Secretary of State Bankside Developments Ltd CA 12-Jul-2004
The appellants challenged the grant of planning permission for neighbouring land. They sought to protect their own amenities and the Tate Modern Gallery.
Held: The only basis of the challenge was under article 8. Cases established of a breach . .
Cited – Andrews v Reading Borough Council QBD 29-Apr-2004
The claimant sought damages for increased road noise resulting from traffic control measures taken by the respondent.
Held: The defendants action to strike out the claim could not succeed. They had not shown that the claim was unarguable, . .
Cited – Inland Revenue and Another v Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc CA 4-Feb-2005
The company sought repayment of excess advance corporation tax payments made under a mistake of law. The question was the extent of the effect of the ruling in Klienwort Benson, in particular whether it covered sums paid as taxation, and how the law . .
Cited – Muck It Ltd v Merritt and others; traffic Commissioner v Muck It Ltd and Others, Secretary of State for Transport intervening CA 15-Sep-2005
The applicant appealed revocation of its operator’s licence.
Held: The Commissioner had erred. When revoking an existing goods vehicle licence the burden was on the commissioner to establish that there was good cause to revoke the licence, and . .
Cited – Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another HL 25-Oct-2006
The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when . .
Cited – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
Cited – Dobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another CA 29-Jan-2009
The claimants complained of odours and mosquitoes affecting their properties from the activities of the defendants in the conduct of their adjoining Sewage Treatment plant. The issue was as to the rights of non title holders to damages in nuisance . .
Cited – Barratt Homes Ltd v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water) SC 9-Dec-2009
The developers wanted to construct their private sewer to the public sewer at a point convenient to them. The water company said a connection at the point proposed would overload the sewer, and refused. The developer claimed that it had the right to . .
Cited – The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Dec-2010
The Action Group had obtained a declaration that, where an overpayment of benefits had arisen due to a miscalculation by the officers of the Department, any process of recovering the overpayment must be by the Act, and that the Department could not . .
Cited – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Environment, Nuisance, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.188435

Tate and Lyle Sugars Ltd v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Another: CA 3 Jun 2011

The company had developed a means of generating electricity from their excess sugar supplies, and challenged the support given to it by the respondent and in particular that the 2009 Order allowed the respondent to favour some types of energy generation, and had been based upon mistaken information.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘even if the appellant’s premise is correct, and the court is satisfied that the appellant’s technology would have been banded more favourably had the correct costs information been used, this did not compel the Secretary of State to carry out the review on the limited basis advanced by the appellant . . the usual situation requires a public body to reach decisions in the light of all the information then available.’
Elias LJ said: ‘I recognise that fairness is an important principle of public law but in determining what is fair in any particular context it is necessary to have regard to the wider public interest. I am not persuaded that as a consequence of this review the Appellant is being unfairly treated. They are in fact receiving the appropriate subsidy for someone incurring the costs involved in developing their particular technology. It is true that they were not obtaining the windfall resulting from the increase in electricity prices which they would have received had no error been made. Furthermore, it may be the case that other producers are receiving a windfall as a result of that price increase and will continue to do so until their technologies are reviewed (although as I have said there will be no windfall if costs have outstripped the electricity price). That is not, in my judgment, a sufficient reason to confer this benefit on the Appellant. It may be bad luck that but for the error the Appellant would have been treated more favourably than was necessary properly to subsidise their technology, particularly since some others will have received the more favourable treatment. It does not follow that it was unfair and an abuse of power to carry out a full review.’

Longmore, Aikens, Elias LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 664
Bailii
Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, Renewables Obligation Order in 2002, Renewables Obligations Order 2009
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Another Admn 2-Nov-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of the 2009 Order, complaining of the reduced allocation to it of a renewables obligation certificate.
Held: The claim failed. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Zeqiri HL 24-Jan-2002
The applicant sought to resist an order for his return to Germany, the first country of call after escaping Kosovo. He asserted that Germany was not complying with its international obligations. He said the Gashi case had created a legitimate . .
Cited – Regina (Kelsall and Others) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) Admn 13-Mar-2003
The claimants were mink farmers. They challenged the order arranging compensation for the closure of their businesses following the ban on fur farming.
Held: The provisions of the order were arbitrary and unfair, failing to take into account . .
Cited – Rashid, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Jun-2005
The Home Secretary appealed against a grant of a judicial review to the respondent who had applied for asylum. The court had found that two other asylum applicants had been granted leave to remain on similar facts and on the appellants, and that it . .
Cited – Middlebrook Mushrooms Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Agricultural Wages Board of England and Wales Admn 18-Jun-2004
The company complained that whereas the generality of employers in agriculture were exempt from control under the minimum wage system, mushroom growers had not been exempted.
Held: The withdrawal of the exemption was irrational and . .

Cited by:
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham and Others), Regina (on The Application of) v Assessment and Qualifications Alliance and Others Admn 13-Feb-2013
Judicial review was sought of the changes to the marking systems for GCSE English in 2012.
Held: The claim failed. Though properly brought, the failure was in the underlying structue of the qualification, and not in the respondent’s attempts . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Environment, Utilities, Administrative

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.440316

Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council: Admn 17 Jul 2008

The applicant sought judicial review of the grant of planning permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. Amongst other things he said that the information required by the order to be placed with the application had not been provided.
Held: This application was refused for delay. The need for expedition is of particular importance in challenges to grants of planning permission. The recipient is prima facie entitled to implement the permission. The decision had been taken in December 2007, but the application was not lodged until April 2008. The applicant had done all it should to provide the information, and any failing was within the council, but it had not produced any unfairness.

Collins J
[2008] EWHC 1650 (Admin)
Bailii
Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal From – Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council and MK Windfarm Ltd CA 10-Oct-2008
Judicial Review must be timely
The appellant challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. His application for judicial review had been rejected for delay and on the merits.
Held: The court repeated the requirement that an application must be both . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.270902

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.
Held: The appeal failed.
It was clear that the Ministers had properly considered the effect on the whimbrel and had concluded that even without mitigation the effect would not be substantial. The reference to the benefits of the project as balancing considerations was a fall-back position which would only have come into play if the primary reasoning were not accepted: ‘the ministers did have regard to the desirability of improving the conservation status of the whimbrel on the islands in general, rather than simply avoiding significant loss due to this proposal. They were entitled to attach weight to the fact that the HMP would result in one third of the whimbrel population of the UK being taken under active management, and to regard it as an exceptional opportunity to improve understanding of the species and its habitat and of the measures necessary to conserve it. ‘

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2015] Env LR 23, 2015 SCLR 224, [2015] 3 CMLR 4, 2015 GWD 5-113, [2015] UKSC 4, [2015] 2 All ER 545, 2015 SLT 95, UKSC 2014/0216
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video
Electricity Act 1989 36, Birds Directive (2009/147/EC), Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000
Scotland
Citing:
At Outer House – Sustainable Shetland, Re Judicial Review SCS 24-Sep-2013
Outer House – The petitioner environmental group objected to the grant under the 1989 Act of permission for the construction for a substantial wind farm in Central Mainland, Shetland. . .
Second Division – Sustainable Shetland v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 3-Dec-2013
Second Division – Inner House -The petitioners challenged the grant of permission under the 1989 Act for a windfarm on Shetland. . .
Inner House – Sustainable Shetland v The Scottish Ministers and Viking Energy Partnership for Judicial Review SCS 9-Jul-2014
Inner House, First Division – Application regarding substantial wind farm on Shetland. The claimants said that the defenders had failed to take proper account of te effect of the proposed development on the whimbrel. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Royal Society for the Protection of Birds ECJ 11-Jul-1996
(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 . .
Cited – Ligue Royale Belge pour la Protection des Oiseaux and Societe d’etudes Ornithologiques AVES v Region Wallonne ECJ 12-Dec-1996
ECJ 1 Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by the Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species – Condition – Absence of any . .
Cited – Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 17-Oct-2013
Outer House – Court of Session – This petition for judicial review challenged the decisions of the Scottish Ministers (a) not to hold a public inquiry, and (b) to grant consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Utilities, Environment

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.542337

Krizan and Others v Slovenska Inspekcia Zivotneho Prostredia: ECJ 15 Jan 2013

kirzan_sizpECJ2013

ECJ (Grand Chamber) Article 267 TFEU – Annulment of a judicial decision – Referral back to the court concerned – Obligation to comply with the annulment decision – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Whether possible – Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 96/61/EC – Public participation in the decision-making process – Construction of a landfill site – Application for a permit – Trade secrets – Non-communication of a document to the public – Effect on the validity of the decision authorising the landfill site – Rectification – Assessment of the environmental impact of the project – Final opinion prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union – Application in time of Directive 85/337 – Effective legal remedy – Interim measures – Suspension of implementation – Annulment of the contested decision – Right to property – Interference

V Skouris, P
C-416/10, [2013] EUECJ C-416/10
Bailii
Article 267 TFEU, Directive 85/337/EEC, Directive 96/61/EC

European, Environment

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.470205

Environment Agency v Inglenorth Ltd: Admn 17 Mar 2009

Mr Evans, had demolished a greenhouse at his garden centre. He engaged a haulier, the respondent, to carry the rubble to his other garden centre site to form the base of a car park. The haulier was charged with the unlawful deposit of controlled waste contrary to section 33 of the 1990 Act. The justices found that at no stage had the owner discarded the rubble as waste. He intended to retain and use it in the same form that in which it had left the Standish garden centre. The Environment Agency appealed.
Held: The justices were in these particular circumstances entitled to find that the rubble was not waste. It could not be inferred the rubble had been discarded by its owner, Mr Evans.
Sir Anthony May stated the question to be answered: ‘the main question in the present case was whether the material delivered to Mr Evans’ Cheadle site should be classified as waste and that the answer to that was primarily to be inferred from Mr Evans’ actions and that those depend on whether or not he intended to discard the substances in question.’

Sir Anthony May, President, and Dobbs J
[2009] Env LR 33, [2009] PTSR CS47, [2009] JPL 1621, [2009] EWHC 670 (Admin)
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.
Environment

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.330988

DK Recycling und Roheisen v Commission: ECJ 22 Jun 2016

(Judgment) Appeal – Environment – Directive 2003/87/EC – Article 10a – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 – Decision 2011/278/EU – National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany – Rejection of the inscription of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances – Provision relating to cases of ‘undue hardship’ – Implementing powers of the Commission

ECLI:EU:C:2016:469, [2016] EUECJ C-540/14
Bailii
Directive 2003/87/EC

European, Environment

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.565857

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 Rylands for escape of materials from land is dependant upon proof of the foreseeability of damage of the relevant type. Here, it was not established that the defendants could have foreseen the damage which was in fact caused. Neighbours had to use the rule of give and take and live and let live.
Lord Goff of Chieveley said: ‘Like the judge in the present case, I incline to the opinion that, as a general rule, it is more appropriate for strict liability in respect of operations of high risk to be imposed by Parliament, than by the courts. If such liability is imposed by statute, the relevant activities can be identified, and those concerned can know where they stand. Furthermore, statute can where appropriate lay down precise criteria establishing the incidence and scope of such liability.’
Lord Goff approved what he suggested was the tenor of what Blackburne J’s statement of the law had meant in Fletcher v Rylands (1866) LR 1 Ex 265: ‘The general tenor of his statement of principle is therefore that knowledge, or at least foreseeability of the risk, is a prerequisite of the recovery of damages under the principle; but that the principle is one of strict liability in the sense that the defendant may be held liable notwithstanding that he has exercised all due care to prevent the escape from occurring’. He reviewed the law of nuisance: ‘Of course, although liability for nuisance has generally been regarded as strict, at least in the case of a defendant who has been responsible for the creation of a nuisance, even so that liability has been kept under control by the principal of reasonable user-the principal of give and take as between neighbouring occupiers of land, under which ‘those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action’: see Bamford v. Turnley [1862] 3 B and S, 62, 83, per Bramwell B.’ and ‘It is not necessary for me to identify precise differences which may be drawn between this principle [in Rylands] and the principle of reasonable user as applied in the law of nuisance. It is enough for present purposes that I should draw attention to the similarity of function.’

Lord Templeman, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lowry and Lord Woolf, Lord Goff of Chieveley
Times 10-Dec-1993, Gazette 16-Mar-1994, Independent 10-Dec-1993, (1994) 1 All ER 53, [1994] 2 WLR 53, [1994] 2 AC 264, [1993] UKHL 12
lip, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
Appeal from – Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc: Cambridge Water Company v Hutchings and Harding Ltd CA 19-Nov-1992
The defendants operated a plant using chlorinated solvent chemicals which, over a long period had seeped through the floor of their factory and into the chalk subsoil, eventually polluting the plaintiff’s water supply some mile and half away. The . .
Applied – Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL 1946
The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . .
Cited – Bamford v Turnley 2-Jul-1862
The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . .

Cited by:
Cited – Jan De Nul (Uk) Limited v NV Royale Belge CA 10-Oct-2001
The contractor undertook to dredge a stretch of river. Due to its failure to investigate properly, the result was the release of substantial volumes of silt into the estuary, to the damage of other river users and frontagers. The act amounted to a . .
Applied – Savage and Another v Fairclough and others CA 30-Jul-1999
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 . .
Cited – McKenna and Others v British Aluminum Ltd ChD 16-Jan-2002
Claimants began an action in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher against the respondents. They sought to strike out the claim on the basis that some of the claimants did not have a sufficient interest in the land affected. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Cited – Dennis and Dennis v Ministry of Defence QBD 16-Apr-2003
The applicants owned a substantial property near an airbase. They complained that changes in the patterns of flying by the respondents were a nuisance and sought damages. Walcot Hall was subjected to very high noise levels from military aircraft. . .
Followed – 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 – Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001
The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property.
Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . .
Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Cited – Bybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council CA 8-Jan-2001
A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an . .
Cited – LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Cited – Anthony and others v The Coal Authority QBD 28-Jul-2005
The claimants lived adjacent to an old coal tip, which caught fire spontaneously and burned for three years. They claimed in nuisance. The defendant argued that the risk of spontaneous ombustion was not reasonable, and that the use was safe.
Cited – Hirose Electrical UK Ltd v Peak Ingredients Ltd CA 11-Aug-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of its claim in nuisance. The parties occupied adjoining units on an industrial estate. The defendant’s business generated odour which, the wall between them being permeable, passed into the claimant’s office . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
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.

Torts – Other, Environment, Nuisance

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.78841

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 prevented the tanks from overflowing. The pumps became choked with brambles, ferns and long leaves: they did not function and an overflow occurred.
Held: The company’s appeal failed. The offence of allowing the noxious material to enter the watercourse is an absolute one, and a prosecutor need not prove even negligence.
The pollution was caused by what the defendant had done. The House analysed the sub-section: ‘The subsection evidently contemplates two things–causing, which must involve some active operation or chain of operations involving as a result the pollution of the stream; knowingly permitting, which involves a failure to prevent the pollution, which failure, however, must be accompanied by knowledge.’ The notion of ‘causing’ is one of common sense. Lord Salmon: ‘what or who has caused a certain event to occur is essentially a practical question of fact which can best be answered by ordinary common sense rather than by abstract metaphysical theory.’ Lord Wilberforce: ”causing’ here must be given a common sense meaning and I deprecate the introduction of refinements, such as causa causans, effective cause or novus actus. There may be difficulties where acts of third persons or natural forces are concerned . . .’ As to Impress: ‘it should not be regarded as a decision that in every case the act of a third party necessarily interrupts the chain of causation initiated by the person who owns or operates the installation or plant from which the flow took place.’

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Salmon
[1972] All ER 475, [1972] AC 824, [1972] UKHL 4
Bailii
Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 2(1)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Impress (Worcester) Ltd v Rees QBD 1971
The appellants kept a fuel oil storage tank with an unlocked valve in their yard near the river. An unauthorised person entered during the night and opened the valve. The justices convicted.
Held: The appeal was allowed. ‘On general principles . .

Cited by:
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 . .
Applied – Welsh Water Authority v Williams Motors (Cwmdu) Ltd QBD 1-Dec-1988
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Cambridgeshire County Council v Associated Lead Mills Ltd ChD 22-Jul-2005
The prosecutor appealed dismissal of the charge of driving a heavy commercial vehicle on a road which was subject to a maximum weight restriction in breach of the 1984 Act. The company denied that it had any knowledge of the actual route taken by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Crime

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.188777

Commission v Greece C-584/14: ECJ 7 Sep 2016

Waste Management Compliance Failures

ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Directive 2006/12/EC – Directive 91/689/EEC – Directive 1999/31/EC – Waste management – Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations – Non-implementation – Article 260(2) TFEU – Pecuniary penalties – Periodic penalty payment – Lump sum

[2016] EUECJ C-584/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:636
Bailii
Directive 2006/12/EC, Directive 91/689/EEC, Directive 1999/31/EC, TFEU 260(2)
European

European, Environment

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.569042

Save Britain’s Heritage, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 14 May 2010

The claimant challenged the order allowing the demolition of a disused listed building saying that the Direction was contrary to European law in not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Secretary of State said an EIA was not required for a demolition.
Held: The challenge was rejected. Whether an EIA was required for a demolition was presently before the European Court of Justice. Planning permission is not required for demolition of any listed building; any building in a conservation area, any scheduled monument, or any building that is neither a dwelling nor adjoining a dwelling. This has no application to the partial demolition of any of those types of building and those types of building falling within (a) to (c) are subject to separate regulatory regimes.
Whilst planning permission is not required for demolition within the scope of the Demolition Direction, such demolition is subject to the regulatory regime set out in s.80-83 of the Building Act 1984. Demolition without reconstruction is not ‘development’ (because such is on its natural meaning the construction of a new building or new buildings or the alteration or refurbishment of an existing building or buildings)’
In any event the size of the proposed scheme also took it outside the EIA Regulations.

Pellings J QC
[2010] EWHC 979 (Admin), [2010] NPC 57, [2010] JPL 1429, [2011] Env LR 6
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Demolition – Description of Buildings) Direction 1995, Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC), Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, Building Act 1988 80, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55, General Permitted Development Order 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Aannemersbedriijf P K Kraaijeveld v Gedeputeerde Staten Van Zuid-Holland ‘the Dutch-Dykes case) ECJ 24-Oct-1996
ECJ The fact that in this case the Member States have a discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive does not preclude judicial review of the question whether the national authorities exceeded their . .
Cited – Ecologistas En Accion-Coda v Ayuntamiento de Madrid ECJ 25-Jul-2008
EU Environment And Consumers – Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC – Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment – Refurbishment and improvement works on urban roads – Whether subject to assessment. . .
Cited – Cambridge City Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Milton Park Investments Ltd 1992
D. wanting to develop an office block, bought neighbouring semi-detached houses hoping to provide additional car parking, enhancing the visual aspects and improving highway safety. When temporary planning consent for use of these properties as site . .
Cited – Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council HL 11-Feb-1997
The removal of a listed building’s chimney stacks was an alteration allowing a claim for compensation. The phrases ‘alteration’ and ‘demolition’ are mutually exclusive. Although part of a building may be a listed building, a part of a listed . .
Cited – Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, etc ECJ 7-Sep-2004
ECJ Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna – Concept of ‘plan’ or ‘project’ – Assessment of the implications of certain plans or projects for the protected site.
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 – Mortell, Regina (on the Application of) v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Admn 30-Mar-2007
The claimant sought orders quashing planning permissions granted for the re-development of land around Derker Station. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, European

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.414966

Commission v United Kingdom C-304/15: ECJ 21 Sep 2016

Control of Polluting Power Station

ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2001/80/EC – Article 4(3) – Annex VI, Part A – Limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants – Application – Aberthaw Power Station

C. Toader (Rapporteur), P
C-304/15, [2016] EUECJ C-304/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:706
Bailii
European

European, Environment

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.569501

OSS Group Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Environment Agency and others: CA 28 Jun 2007

Once lubricating oil had been processed into fuel oil suitable for burning, it ceased to be waste so as to require it to be handled and stored as waste.
Held: Carnwath LJ discussed the meaning of the term ‘discards or intends . . to discard’. The use of the subjective test, while useful when examining the product in the hands of the ‘producer’ of waste, may not be apt to define the status of the material in the hands of a subsequent holder of the material for recycling or re-processing. Carnwath LJ expressed the ‘general concept’ of the discard of waste as getting rid of something which is unsuitable, unwanted or surplus to requirements.
Carnwath LJ summarised the European case law: ‘Understandably, the court has held that a material does not cease to be waste merely because it has come into the hands of someone who intends to put it to a new use. But that should not be because it still meets the Art.1(a) definition in his hands; but rather because, in accordance with the aims of the Directive, material which was originally waste needs to continue to be so treated until acceptable recovery or disposal has been achieved. Unfortunately the court has consistently declined invitations to develop workable criteria to determine that question. Instead, it continues to insist that the ”discarding” test remains applicable, even where the ”holder” is an end-user such as Epon, whose only subjective intention is to use, not to get rid of, the materials in issue . . In other words, although the Court continues to pay lip-service to the ”discarding” test, in practice it subordinates the subjective question implicit in that definition, to a series of objective indicators derived from the policy of the Directive. What is required from the national court is a value judgment on the facts of the particular case in the light of those indicators.’

Carnwath LJ, (Lord Clarke MR, Maurice Kay LJ
[2008] Env LR 8, [2007] EWCA Civ 611, Times 06-Jul-2007
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Licensing

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.253746

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 to continue to replenish their sea defences. That work would be unlawful without permission, and none had been sought. The appeal succeeded: ‘the court should be slow to grant relief which is, in reality, intended to facilitate the retention of works that are unlawful. ‘

Mummery LJ, Longmore LJ, Sullivan LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1061, Times 08-Dec-2009, [2009] WLR (D) 304
Bailii, WLRD
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 28, Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, Council Directive 92/43/EC, Environmental Protection Act 1990 131(6)
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Boggis, Regina (on the Application of) v Natural England and Another CA 29-Feb-2008
Renewed application for leave to bring judicial review – making of SSSI – granted. . .
Appeal from – Boggis and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Natural England and Another Admn 5-Dec-2008
The claimants wanted to erect a sacrificial barrier by way of a sea defence in order to protect cliffs from erosion. The site was then designated as a site of special scientific interest, and permission was required from the defendant, who refused, . .
Cited – Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, etc ECJ 7-Sep-2004
ECJ Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna – Concept of ‘plan’ or ‘project’ – Assessment of the implications of certain plans or projects for the protected site.
Cited – Berkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others HL 11-May-2000
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 . .
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 – Commission v United Kingdom ECJ 20-Oct-2005
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fufil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora.
The respondent had failed properly to transpose the Habitats Directive into . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.376205

Interseroh Scrap And Metals Trading v Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH: ECJ 29 Mar 2012

InterserohECJ2012

ECJ Environment – Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 – Article 18(1) and (4) – Shipments of certain waste – Article 3(2) – Mandatory information – Identity of waste producers – Information not provided by the intermediary dealer – Protection of business secrets

Bonichot P
C-1/11, [2012] EUECJ C-1/11
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006
Citing:
See Also – Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV v Heinrich Heine GmbH ECJ 8-Dec-2011
ECJ (Opinion) Directive 97/7/CE Consumer protection Distance contracts Right of withdrawal Consumer charged with the cost of delivering the goods . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Environment

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.452624

Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland: ECJ 9 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Atmospheric pollution – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – Directive 2003/87/EC – Concept of ‘installation’ – Inclusion of the fuel storage site – Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 – Concept of ‘fuel exported from the installation’

ECLI:EU:C:2016:422, [2016] EUECJ C-158/15
Bailii
Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, Directive 2003/87/EC

European, Environment

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.565604

Ville D’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve And Others v Region wallonne: ECJ 9 Apr 2014

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442/EEC – Article 7(1) – Management plan – Suitable sites or installations for the disposal of waste – Concept of waste management plan – Directive 1999/31/EC – Articles 8 and 14 – Landfills which have been granted a permit, or which are already in operation at the time of transposition of that directive

R. Silva de Lapuerta, P
C-225/13, [2014] EUECJ C-225/13
Bailii
Directive 75/442/EEC 7(1), Directive 1999/31/EC 8 14
European

Environment

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.523644

United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland v European Commission: ECJ 29 Nov 2012

ECJ Appeal – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats – List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region – Inclusion in the list of a site proposed by the Kingdom of Spain – Site allegedly covering an area of British Gibraltar territorial waters and an area of the high seas – Action for annulment – Measure merely confirmatory

R. Silva de Lapuerta
C-416/11, [2012] EUECJ C-416/11
Bailii
Directive 92/43/EEC
European

Environment

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.466428

Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp: CA 4 Nov 2008

The court considered an application for a protective costs order in judicial review proceedings in environmental law cases.
Held: The central decision was Corner House Research, but that was to be applied purposively and not rigidly. It was appropriate for the court to enquire as to the claimants arrangements with his lawyers as to costs, including any success fee negotiated. In this case the parties had not followed the recommended practice, and the defendant had not applied for a cap on the costs awarded, and ‘In the rare case in which it is necessary to have an oral hearing, it should last a short time as contemplated in Corner House and it should take place in good time before the hearing of the substantive application for judicial review so that the parties may know the position as to their potential liabilities for costs in advance of incurring the costs.’
On an appeal, the court should consider the continuation of the PCO on any application for leave. Without wishing itself to judge the prospects of success, the PCO had been properly limited on this appeal, so that Buglife did face some risk if it proceeded.

Sir Anthony Clarke, Maurice Lay LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1209, Times 18-Nov-2008
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Buglife (the Invertebrate Conservation Trust), Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp and Another Admn 22-Feb-2008
. .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Compton, Regina (on the Application of) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust Admn 26-Nov-2007
Applicaton for protective costs order. The court considered the report of a working group on such orders which said that to be suitable for a PCO a case must be a ‘public interest case’, but found it difficult to define what sort of case fell within . .
Cited – Bullmore and Another v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust Admn 9-Jul-2007
Challenge to Trust’s decision to close local hospital. . .
Cited – Bullmore, Regina (on the Application of) v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust CA 8-Jun-2007
Renewed application for protective costs order. . .
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .

Cited by:
See Also – Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation and Another CA 28-Jan-2009
Buglife appealed against refusal of judicial review of a decision to grant planning permission for the site of a former power station saying that it would adversely affect the environment for invertebrate animals. It now sought a protective costs . .
Cited – Eweida v British Airways plc CA 16-Oct-2009
Appeal against refusal of protective costs order. The claimant said that she had been discriminated against when she was refused permission to wear her christian cross with her uniform. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Environment, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.277386

Austin and Others v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd: CA 29 Jul 2011

The claimants appealed against refusal of a Group Litigation Order (GLO). Over 500 parties wished to claim in nuisance caused by open cast mining operations conducted by the defendants.
Held: The appeals failed. The making of a GLO is a matter of discretion. At the hearing it was not clear that any claimant would be able to proceed, and it had since become clear that After The Event costs insurance would not be obtainable. The applicants had not complied with the requirements for the making of an order, and none had yet issued proceedings. The judge had already adjourned the application to allow progress by the potential claimants, and his refusal to allow a further adjournment could not be criticised.
The defendants had already issued a bill of costs for over andpound;250.000. The potential claimants said that the Aarhus Convention should apply to limit them. On analysis and after concessions by the defendant the court established that no potential cliamant should to date face any liability greater than andpound;362. The Aarhus convention claim had to have been raised in the court below, and there was no evidence before the court to apply it now.
As to the protective costs order, the sums before the court, after undertakings by the defendant, were not excessive: ‘every uninsured person who embarks upon litigation, must accept some degree of cost risks. There are strong policy reasons why this should be so, not least to maintain proper discipline over litigation, to incentivise reasonable litigation behaviour and to reduce the financial burden upon those who are vindicated. The Aarhus Convention does not require that environmental litigation should be cost free, merely that it should be not prohibitively expensive.’

Pill, Jackson, Gross LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 928
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 19, Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters made at Aarhus, Denmark on 25 June 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others SC 15-Dec-2010
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only . .
Cited – Morgan and Another v Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd CA 2-Mar-2009
The claimants had alleged that smells from a composting site near their homes constituted a private nuisance. Following the discharge of an interim injunction, Judge Seymour ordered the claimants to pay the costs of the injunction proceedings. The . .
Cited – Eweida v British Airways plc CA 16-Oct-2009
Appeal against refusal of protective costs order. The claimant said that she had been discriminated against when she was refused permission to wear her christian cross with her uniform. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs, Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.442415

Marie-Noelle Solvay and Others v Region wallonn: ECJ 16 Feb 2012

ECJ Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment – Concept of legislative act – Force and effect of the guidance in the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide – Consent for a project given without an appropriate assessment of its effects on the environment – Access to justice in environmental matters – Extent of the right to a review procedure – Habitats Directive – Plan or project affecting the integrity of the site – Imperative reason of overriding public interest

J-C Bonichot P
[2012] 2 CMLR 19, [2012] EUECJ C-182/10, [2012] Env LR 27
Bailii
European
Cited by:
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.

Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.451698

Syllogos Ellinon Poleodomon Kai Chorotakton v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon: ECJ 21 Jun 2012

ECJ Directive 2001/42/CE – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Article 3(2)(b) – Margin of discretion of the Member States)

Prechal P
C-177/11, [2012] EUECJ C-177/11
Bailii
Directive 2001/42/CE
European

Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.460899

Clientearth v EIB (Environment – Financing of A Biomass Power Generation Plant In Galicia – Judgment): ECFI 27 Jan 2021

Financing of A Biomass Power Generation Plant

Environment – Financing of a biomass power generation plant in Galicia – Resolution of the Board of Directors of the EIB approving the financing – Access to justice in environmental matters – Articles 9 and 10 of the Aarhus Convention – Articles 10 to 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Request for an internal review – Refusal of the request as inadmissible – Action for annulment – Admissibility of a ground of defence – Obligation to state reasons – Concept of an act adopted under environmental law – Concept of an act having a legally binding and external effect

T-9/19, [2021] EUECJ T-9/19, ECLI:EU:T:2021:42
Bailii
European

Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.663919

Clientearth, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 27 Apr 2017

Pre-election Purdah is not a rule of law

The claimant challenged the delay by the respondent in the publication of a report on proposals for compliance with air quality proposals until after the forthcoming election. The respondent argued that the there was a periof of purdah applied in such circumstances.
Held: The publication could not be further delayed: ‘Purdah is not a principle of law. The guidance from the Cabinet Office, to which I have referred, is directed towards government ministers, other elected officers and officials in central or local government. It is not directed towards the court, nor, consistent with the rule of law, could it be. Purdah does not amend duties imposed on ministers by statute. It does not provide ministers with a defence to proceedings in private or public law. What is set out by the Cabinet Office in the guidance is not law, it is convention. Ordinarily such convention must give way to a duty under statute or an order of the court.’

Garnham J
[2017] EWHC B12 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Environment, Constitutional

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.582145

Boggis and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Natural England and Another: Admn 5 Dec 2008

The claimants wanted to erect a sacrificial barrier by way of a sea defence in order to protect cliffs from erosion. The site was then designated as a site of special scientific interest, and permission was required from the defendant, who refused, saying that the natural erosion of the cliffs continued to expose material of geological interest.
Held: The defendant’s intention to confirm the SSSI amounted to a plan, and therefore the defendant’s were under an obligation to consider the effect on neighbouring land owners, including the claimants, before confirming the SSSI.

Blair J
[2008] EWHC 2954 (Admin)
Bailii, Times
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 28
England and Wales
Citing:
see Also – Boggis, Regina (on the Application of) v Natural England and Another CA 29-Feb-2008
Renewed application for leave to bring judicial review – making of SSSI – granted. . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.278651

KV and Others v Regina: CACD 19 Oct 2011

Cranston J said: ‘The issue before us is whether the judge was correct in ruling at a preparatory hearing for the trial that regulation 23 of the UK Regulations and article 36 of the EU Regulation catch all those who are involved in transporting waste for export, from the point of origin where waste is collected and stored for onward transmission to another country, through to the point where the waste is delivered to that country. In reaching that conclusion the judge rejected defence submissions that a defendant only exports waste at some later point, at the extreme when the waste shipped by him leaves the European Community. The judge also rejected submissions that regulation 23 is in breach of European Union law and is ultra vires, and that that regulation is disproportionate and consequently unlawful.’
Held: Regulation 23 properly reflected the terms, aims and objectives of the EC 2006 Regulation. It covered all stages of an ‘export’ of waste ‘commencing once the waste is destined for [a non-OECD] country at its point of origin, and continuing until the waste reaches its ultimate destination’.
Cranston J considered whether the creation of an offence of strict liability was disproportionate: ‘In general there is no issue of proportionality under EU law with respect to strict liability offences: Case C-326/88, Public Prosecutor v Hansen [1991] ICR 277. The defendants point out that there are none of the standard defences in the UK Regulations to the commission of an offence under regulation 23, which one would expect if regulation 23 was a strict liability offence: cf. Environmental Protection Act 1990, s. 33(7). Hansen, they point out, was a case involving a fine, not imprisonment. In response the prosecution refers to the offence which an employer commits under section 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 for failure to discharge any of the duties set out in sections 2-7 of that Act. We note, however, that some of those duties are qualified by terms such as reasonable practicability.
The judge assumed that strict liability was what was intended by the drafters of the UK Regulations. The phraseology of regulation 23 compared with, say, regulation 36 of the EU Regulations, quoted earlier, supports that conclusion. The contrary has not been argued before us. Assuming that this is an offence involving strict liability, it does not, in our judgment, fail for disproportionality for that reason. Sentence in a court in England or Wales is at large and discretionary; there is ample power in the court to avoid imprisonment, or indeed serious punishment, if a defendant has genuinely offended entirely without fault. The theoretical possibility of a transporter of waste being duped into transporting it without any means of knowing he is doing so would exist also if the offence were limited in the way contended for by the defendants to physical crossing of the last Member State boundary. For both environmental and public health reasons, the handling of waste is very closely managed under EU Regulation 1013/2006 and the international instruments to which we have referred, the Basel Convention and the OECD decision. That involves imposing considerable duties of supervision and enquiry on those who handle such material. Regulation 23 catches anyone breaching article 36(1), anyone involved in a prohibited export. That is a wider category than notifier, which is just one of the categories falling within regulation 5, where transport and person who transports are defined. As we have found, when regulation 23 prohibits transport of waste in breach of article 36(1), it states what article 36(1) intended. The UK regulations do not widen the scope of article 36(1) but merely give effect to it when read in conjunction with the definitions in article 2 of the EU Regulation. We are not persuaded by the defendants’ arguments that regulation 23, coupled with regulation 5, is disproportionate.’

Hughes LJ, Vice-President, Hickinbottom J and Cranston J
[2011] EWCA Crim 2342
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – 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.
Crime, Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.447503

Ayuntamiento de Benferri v Iberdrola Distribucion Electrica: ECJ 27 Mar 2014

ECJ Preliminary ruling – Directive 85/337/EEC – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Construction of some airlines power transmission – Expansion of electricity sub-station – Non-submission of the draft environmental assessment

J. L. da Cruz Vilaca, P
C-300/13, [2014] EUECJ C-300/13
Bailii
Directive 85/337/EEC

European, Utilities, Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.523331

Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: Admn 11 Jun 2013

The claimant, displaced from the Chagos Archipelago, challenged a decision by the respondent to create a no-take Marine Protected Area arround the island which would make life there impossible if he and others returned. The respondent renewed his objection to the use of leaked materials, saying that this would be a breach of the Official Secrets Act and of the Diplomatic Privileges Act.
Held: The claim failed. The objection was sustained, and the decision to admit the documents in evidence reversed under the 1964 Act, it being now ‘a settled principle of public international and municipal law, that the inviolability of diplomatic communications requires that judicial authorities of states parties to the 1961 Convention should, in the absence of consent by the sending state, exclude illicitly obtained diplomatic documents and correspondence from judicial proceedings.’ The decision had not been taken on improper grounds.

Richards LJ, Mitting J
[2013] EWHC 1502 (Admin)
Bailii
Official Secrets Act 1989 2(2), Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Bancoult Admn 3-Mar-1999
Application for leave to appeal granted. . .
See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Another, ex parte Bancoult Admn 3-Nov-2000
The applicant sought judicial review of an ordinance made by the commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory. An issue was raised whether the High Court in London had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings and grant relief.
Held: . .
See Also – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) Admn 11-May-2006
The claimant on behalf of himself and other islanders sought a declaration that the 2004 Order was unlawful. The islands had been emptied of people in 1973 and before in order to allow use of the islands as military bases. He had enjoyed a right to . .
See Also – Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) CA 23-May-2007
The claimant was a Chagos Islander removed in 1970 to make way for a US airbase. The court had ordered that the islanders be allowed to return, but the appellant had passed an Order in Council effectively reversing the position, and now appealed a . .
See Also – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
See Also – Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
See Also – Chagos Islanders v Attorney-General and Another CA 22-Jul-2004
The claimants sought leave to appeal against a finding that they had no cause of action for their expulsion from their islands.
Held: ‘Exile without colour of law is forbidden by Magna Carta. That it can amount to a public law wrong is already . .
Directions – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 25-Jul-2012
The claimant sought in advance permission to cross examine two civil servants at a forthcoming judicial review. Documents had been leaked and widely published suggesting that the decision now to be challenged had been taken for improper purposes. . .
Directions – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 21-Nov-2012
Reasons for decision allowing re-amendment of claim and requiring production of documents by a non-party. . .
At ECHR – Chagos Islanders v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Dec-2012
Chagossians applied to the Court complaining inter alia about their removal from the Chagos islands and the prohibition on their return.
Held: The application was dismissed as manifestly unfounded and accordingly inadmissible . .
Cited – Regina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
Cited – Regina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
Cited – Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc v Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd and International Tin Council (Intervener) (No. 2) HL 1988
Article 7(1) of the International Tin Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1972 provided that the ITC ‘shall have the like inviolability of official archives as in accordance with the 1961 Convention Articles is accorded in respect of the . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Council Of The European Union, European Commission ECFI 29-Jan-2013
ECJ Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation – Freezing of funds – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Right to . .
Cited – Regina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
Cited – El-Masri v The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ECHR 13-Dec-2012
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a German national of Lebanese origin, alleged that he had been subjected to a secret rendition operation, namely that agents of the respondent State had arrested him, held him incommunicado, questioned and ill-treated . .
Cited – Stirling, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Haringey CA 22-Feb-2013
The applicant sought judicial review of the approach taken by the respondent to the Council Tax reduction scheme, following the abolition of Council Tax Benefit. They now appealed against rejection of that challenge.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Cited – Rex v Rose 1946
(Quebec Court of King’s Bench, Appeal Side) Rose was convicted on charges of conspiracy to act with a group of Russian and Canadian subjects in a manner which was prejudicial to the safety of Canada. Part of the evidence was contained in documents . .
Cited – Fayed v Al-Tajir CA 1987
The de facto head of the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in London was sued by Mr Fayed in respect of an Embassy communication addressed to an Embassy counsellor. Diplomatic immunity had been waived, but the question remained whether the . .

Cited by:
Evidence emerged – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Appeal from (Admn) – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 23-May-2014
The appellant wished to challenge the decision made by the respondent to declare a ‘no-take’ Marine Protected Area’ covering their former home islands of Chagos. They sought to have entered in evidence of an improper motive in the Minister making . .
At First Instance (Admn) – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) (No 3) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 8-Feb-2018
Diplomatic Protection Lost to Public Domain
The claimant challenged the use of a Marine Protected Area Order to exclude the Chagossians from their homelands on their British Indian Overseas Territory. They had sought to have admitted and used in cross examination of witnesses leaked . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Environment, Constitutional, Litigation Practice, Evidence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.510721

Office of Communications v The Information Commissioner: SC 27 Jan 2010

The parties disputed the publication of materials relating to the exact placement of mobile phone masts. The operators wanted the information excepted from disclosure for fear of criminal acts and also said that disclosure would breach their database rights.
Held: The Regulations sought merely to transpose the Directive into UK law, and it must be to the Directive that the court should look. The court was divided on its own opinion of the result but agreed that the matter needed first to be referred to the European Court under the question: ‘Under Council Directive 2003/4/EC, where a public authority holds environmental information, disclosure of which would have some adverse effects on the separate interests served by more than one exception (in casu, the interests of public security served by article 4(2(b) and those of intellectual property rights served by article 4(2)(e)), but it would not do so, in the case of either exception viewed separately, to any extent sufficient to outweigh the public interest in disclosure, does the Directive require a further exercise involving the cumulation of the separate interests served by the two exceptions and their weighing together against the public interest in disclosure?’

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Saville, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Collins
[2010] Env LR 20, [2010] UKSC 3, UKSC 2009/0168
Bailii Summary, Bailii, SC, SC Summ
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No 3391) 12(5)(a) 12(5)(c), Directive 2003/4/EC of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information, Rights in Database Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No 3032), Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 3
England and Wales
Citing:
At first Instance – Office of Communications, Regina (on the Application of) v Information Commissioner Admn 8-Apr-2008
Appeal against order for disclosure of details of location, ownership and technical attributes of mobile phone cellular-based stations. . .
Appeal from – Office of Communications v The Information Commissioner CA 20-Feb-2009
Grounds for non-disclosure treated cumulatively
An applicant had requested disclosure of information regarding the environmental impact of electro-magnetic radiation from mobile phones. The court considered the balance between the need to disclose information and the maintaining of exceptions to . .
Cited – Sweden v Commission And Others (Law Governing The Institutions) ECJ 18-Jul-2007
ECJ Appeal Access to documents of the institutions Documents of the German authorities concerning the declassification of a site protected under the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats Refusal. . .
Cited – Sweden and Turco v Council and Others (Law Governing The Institutions) ECJ 29-Nov-2007
Where a member state submitted documents to a Community institution requesting that such docments be not disclosed to a third party, that request was to be treated as the beginning of a process of the institution asking whether they should not be . .
Cited – Turco and Kingdom of Sweden (supported by Denmark, Finland and The Netherlands) v Council of the European Union (supported by Commission of the European Communities and United Kingdom) ECJ 1-Jul-2008
ECJ Appeals Access to documents of the institutions Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 Legal opinion. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Environment, European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.395047

W, C and C, Regina v: CACD 11 May 2010

The prosecutor appealed against a finding of no case to answer. The defendants were accused in relation to the deposit on farm land of soil and sub-soil excavated during construction works on other land. The defendants included the works manager and the farm owners. The prosecutor said the materials were controlled waste requiring a license for disposal. The defendants said they had intended the materials would allow for the construction of a hard standing for the farm, and an inspector had given his written opinion that the primary purpose was engineering and not waste disposal, and was permitted development. The defendants had argued that it was not waste, and if it was it was not controlled waste. The court had found the prosecutor’s evidence insufficient.
Held: The appeal succeeded. McCombe J said: ‘We conclude, like the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland [in Department of the Environment v Felix O’Hare and Another [2007] NICA 45], that excavated soil which has to be discarded by the then ‘holder’ is capable of being waste within the Act and, in any individual case, ordinarily will be. Having become waste it remains waste unless something happens to alter that. Whether such an event has happened is a question of fact for the jury. The possibility of re-use at some indefinite future time does not alter its status: see Palin Granit, and indeed ARCO. Actual re-use may do so (Inglenorth), but only if consistent with the aims and objectives of the Act and of the Directive: (c.f. O’Hare), the principal ones of which are the avoidance of harm to persons or to the environment, as set out in the recitals to the Directive. Which of those aims and objectives are relevant to an individual case will depend on the cases presented by the parties. In this case, for example, the main concern maintained by the Crown is for the environment around the village where the respondents’ farm lies (as a Special Area of Conservation) and visual amenity in the area generally. Matters which, in our judgment, are readily capable of assessment by a jury in deciding whether any material in issue is in fact ‘waste’.
McCombe J continued: ‘In the first place, he was in error in assessing the status of the materials entirely by reference to the respondents as ‘holder'[s]: see paragraph 9 of the judgment, last sentence. The hauliers were also clearly ‘holders’ of materials which it was open to the jury to find to have been waste from the moment of excavation at the neighbouring farm and requiring to be discarded by the land owners as ‘holders’. The additional question was whether what the jury could find to be ‘waste’ from the moment of excavation to the moment immediately prior to deposit on the respondents’ land ceased to be so because of the intended and actual use of it by the new holders. That too, in our judgment, was a question of fact for the jury.
Secondly, the judge fell into error, we think, because he then concentrated entirely upon the intentions of the respondents to put the material to immediate use and found that it could not be waste because there was not the slightest element of discarding in the use to which they put it immediately after the deposit: see paragraph 18. At the close of the Crown’s case there was to our minds undoubtedly evidence to go to the jury which would entitle them to find that these materials were waste that were required to be disposed of by the producers and by the hauliers and that the respondents had been paid to relieve that need on their part. If satisfied, on that material, that this was waste at that stage, the further question that remained for the jury was whether, having regard to the aims of the Directive, the materials ceased to be waste, no longer being discarded by anyone, which was being subjected to acceptable recovery or disposal.’

Hughes LJ, McCombe J, Sharp DBE J
[2010] EWCA Crim 927
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990
England and Wales
Cited by:
Considered – Evan Jones and Another, Regina v CACD 2011
Surplus soil and subsoil from a pipeline excavation was hauled by the appellants to other land where it was tipped. The hauliers were convicted of depositing controlled waste contrary to section 33(1) of the 1990 Act. The complaint was that the . .
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 – 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.
Crime, Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.414598

Regina v Kelleher: CACD 6 Nov 2008

The defendant had been convicted of fly-tipping. His activities were commercial but did not involve any dangerous or offensive waste.
Held: A prison sentence (14 months) was still capable of being proper. The defendant’s activities had been extensive and had caused substantial expense to the local authority. Parliament had since increased the maximum penalty.

Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Maddison
Times 25-Nov-2008
Environmental Protection Act 1990
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.284839

EON Kraftwerke v Bundesrepublik Deutschland: ECJ 8 Sep 2016

Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme within the European Union – Directive 2003/87/EC – Harmonised free allocation of emission allowances – Decision 2011/278/EU – Change to the allocation – Article 24(1) – Obligation of the operator of the installation to provide information – Scope

A Arabadjiev, P
C-461/15, [2016] EUECJ C-461/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:648
Bailii
Directive 2003/87/EC
European

European, Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.569044

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.
Held: The appeals failed. Once a substance or object has been discarded (and has therefore become waste) the question whether it has changed its status is one of objective fact. However, the fact of which the jury must be sure (by regulation 23 applying Art 2 of the EC 2006 Regulation) is that the substance or object is one which the ‘holder discards or intends . . to discard’.
The trial judge must adapt his directions to the jury so as eliminate the apparent contradictions between the words used and their purposeful interpretation. On the facts of the present case these collectors/holders had loaded the containers for consignment to Nigeria. The issue whether they had ‘discarded or intended to discard’ the objects within the containers could only be resolved by answering the question whether what they had done to those objects before loading rendered them non-waste. What matters is whether the holder takes some action or intends to take some action with respect to the items which has changed their status. Whether the holder discards or intends to discard the items is judged by what he did with them and not by his subjective belief that he was discarding them (or would be discarding them) or not.
‘We do not rule out that there will be cases in which proof of the intention of the holder is necessary. This, in our view, was not one of them. The judge rightly directed the jury that they should examine the question whether the items had been subjected to any process, such as inspection, testing and/or repair, which may have changed their status.’

Pitchford LJ, King, Blair JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 2064
Bailii
European Waste Shipment Regulation 1013/2006, Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 23
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Cited – Regina (Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd) v Environment Agency and Another; Corus (UK) Ltd and Another, Interveners ECJ 19-Jun-2003
The applicants took in ferrous scrap, sorted and cut it, selling it on to processors who would use the material in a second stage recycling process to produce ingots. The claimed entitlement to credit under the regulations.
Held: The second . .
Cited – Criminal Proceedings Against G Vessoso And G Zanetti ECJ 28-Mar-1990
ECJ The concept of waste, within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 75/442 and Article 1 of Directive 78/319, is not to be understood as excluding substances and objects which are capable of economic . .
Cited – Criminal proceedings against Tombesi and others ECJ 25-Jun-1997
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 . .
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 – Palin Granit Oy v Vehmassalon kansaterveystyon kuntayhtyman hallitus ECJ 18-Apr-2002
Harmonisation of laws – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Concept of waste – Production residue – Quarry – Storage – Use of waste – No risk to health or the environment – Possibility of recovery of waste . .
Cited – Inter-Environnement Wallonie And Terre Wallonne v Region Wallonne ECJ 8-Dec-2011
ECJ (Opinion) Protection of the environment – Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution . .
Cited – OSS Group Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Environment Agency and others CA 28-Jun-2007
Once lubricating oil had been processed into fuel oil suitable for burning, it ceased to be waste so as to require it to be handled and stored as waste.
Held: Carnwath LJ discussed the meaning of the term ‘discards or intends . . to discard’. . .
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 – W, C and C, Regina v CACD 11-May-2010
The prosecutor appealed against a finding of no case to answer. The defendants were accused in relation to the deposit on farm land of soil and sub-soil excavated during construction works on other land. The defendants included the works manager and . .
Cited – Evan Jones and Another, Regina v CACD 2011
Surplus soil and subsoil from a pipeline excavation was hauled by the appellants to other land where it was tipped. The hauliers were convicted of depositing controlled waste contrary to section 33(1) of the 1990 Act. The complaint was that the . .
Cited – Environment Agency v Inglenorth Ltd Admn 17-Mar-2009
Mr Evans, had demolished a greenhouse at his garden centre. He engaged a haulier, the respondent, to carry the rubble to his other garden centre site to form the base of a car park. The haulier was charged with the unlawful deposit of controlled . .
Cited – Gammon v The Attorney-General of Hong Kong PC 1984
(Hong kong) The court considered the need at common law to show mens rea. A Hong Kong Building Ordinance created offences of strict liability in pursuit of public safety which strict liability was calculated to promote.
Held: Lord Scarman . .
Cited – W, C and C, Regina v CACD 11-May-2010
The prosecutor appealed against a finding of no case to answer. The defendants were accused in relation to the deposit on farm land of soil and sub-soil excavated during construction works on other land. The defendants included the works manager and . .
Approved – KV and Others v Regina CACD 19-Oct-2011
Cranston J said: ‘The issue before us is whether the judge was correct in ruling at a preparatory hearing for the trial that regulation 23 of the UK Regulations and article 36 of the EU Regulation catch all those who are involved in transporting . .
Approved – Regina v Jackson CACD 17-Oct-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction for low flying contrary to the 1955 Act, saying that it had been treated wrongly as an offence of strict liability.
Held: Hooper LJ said: ‘Whilst it is always possible to adumbrate situations which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.464904

Jutta Leth v Republik Osterreich: ECJ 14 Mar 2013

ECJ Environment – Directive 85/337/EEC – Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment – Consent for such a project without an appropriate assessment – Objectives of that assessment – Conditions to which the existence of a right to compensation are subject – Whether protection of individuals against pecuniary damage is included

L Bay Larsen P
C-420/11, [2013] EUECJ C-420/11, [2013] WLR(D) 106, [2013] PTSR 805, ECLI:EU:C:2013:166
Bailii, WLRD
Directive 85/337/EEC
European

Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.471906

Regina v HM Inspector of Pollution and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex Parte Greenpeace Ltd: CA 30 Sep 1993

A campaigning organisation was challenging an official decision which, if stayed, would have adverse financial implications for a commercial company (British Nuclear Fuels PLC) which was not a party to the proceedings. Brooke J had refused a stay.
Held: The appeal failed. The variation of the terms for nuclear waste site testing was lawful. A responsible body with a bona fide concern about the subject matter of the proceedings may be regarded as being more than a mere ‘busy body.’
Glidewell LJ said that where a stay might operate to the detriment of third parties who are not before the court, the court should apply the principles ordinarily applicable to a claim for an interim injunction and consider whether, on the balance of convenience, the grant of a stay is justified. He also said: ‘At the hearing before Brooke J no offer was made by Greenpeace to give an undertaking as to damages suffered by BNFL should they suffer any; the sort of undertaking that would normally be required if an interlocutory injunction were to be granted. I bear in mind that the judge said that he was influenced by the evidence about Greenpeace’s likely inability to pay for that financial loss, but he had earlier remarked that he had not been offered an undertaking. If we were dealing with this matter purely on the material which was before the judge, I would find no difficulty at all. This was essentially a matter for the discretion of the judge.’
Scott LJ said: ‘But if the purpose of the interlocutory stay is, as here, to prevent executive action by a third party in pursuance of rights which have been granted by the decision under attack, then, in my judgment, to require a cross-undertaking in damages to be given is, as a matter of discretion, an entirely permissible condition for the grant of interlocutory relief and in general, I would think, unless some special feature be present, a condition that should be expected to be imposed.’

Glidewell, Scott, Evans LLJ
Independent 30-Sep-1993, [1994] 4 All ER 329, [1993] EWCA Civ 9, [1994] ELR 76, [1994] 1 WLR 570
Bailii
Radioactive Substances Act 1960
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd Admn 10-Nov-1994
The Movement sought to challenge decisions of the Secretary of state to give economic aid to the Pergau Dam, saying that it was not required ‘for the purpose of promoting the development’ of Malaysia. It was said to be uneconomic and damaging. It . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
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.

Environment, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.86866

Commission v Poland: ECJ 20 Nov 2014

comm_polandECJ201411

ECJ Judgment – Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Definition of inadequate or polluted waters may be – inadequate designation of vulnerable zones – Programmes of Action – incomplete measures

Mme K. Jurimae (Rapporteur), P
C-356/13, [2014] EUECJ C-356/13
Bailii
Directive 91/676/EEC

European, Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.538953

Liga Para A Proteccao Da Natureza (Lpn) v European Commission: ECJ 5 Sep 2013

liga_naturezaECJ2013

ECJ Opinion – Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Access to documents of the institutions – Refusal to grant access to documents relating to a current infringement procedure concerning a dam project on the River Sabor (Portugal) – Article 4 – Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits – Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination – Overriding public interest – Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Article 6 – Environmental information

Wathelet AG
C-514/11, [2013] EUECJ C-514/11
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 4, Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 6

European, Information, Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.515167

European Air Transport v College d’Environnement de la Region de Bruxelles-Capitale: ECJ 17 Feb 2011

ECJ (Opinion) Air transport – Directive 2002/30/EC – Definition of ‘operating restrictions’ – Noise limits at source which must be observed when overflying built-up areas near an airport – Possibility of adopting national rules based on noise levels measured on the ground – Relationship with Directive 2002/49/EC – Convention on International Civil Aviation – Fundamental rights – Articles 7, 37 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Case law of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Member States concerning protection from noise pollution.

C-120/10, [2011] EUECJ C-120/10 – O
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Opinion – European Air Transport v College d’Environnement de la Region de Bruxelles-Capitale ECJ 8-Sep-2011
Air transport – Directive 2002/30/EC – Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports – Noise level limits that must be observed when overflying built-up areas near an airport . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Environment

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.430206

Romonta v Commission: ECFI 26 Sep 2014

romontaECFI1409

ECFI Judgment – Environment – Directive 2003/87/EC – Trading Scheme gas emissions greenhouse – Transitional rules regarding harmonized allocation of emission allowances for free in 2013 – Decision 2011/278 / EU – National implementation measures by Germany – Clause on cases with undue hardship – Professional Freedom and Enterprise – Right to property – Proportionality

MM. A. Dittrich (Rapporteur), P
T-614/13, [2014] EUECJ T-614/13
Bailii
Directive 2003/87/EC

European, Environment

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.537067

Champion v North Norfolk District Council and Another: Admn 7 May 2013

The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for the erection of silos for the storage of barley. He said that the development might adversely impact on a nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Held: The judicial review succeeded. The planning committee would have been entitled on the material before them in 2011 rationally to reach the conclusion that there was no relevant risk requiring appropriate assessment or an EIA. However, such a conclusion was inconsistent with the decision at the same time to impose a requirement for testing of water quality and remediation if necessary: ‘These conditions, which could only be imposed where the Committee considered them necessary, suggested that the Committee considered that there was a risk that pollutants could enter the river. This would also have been a rational and reasonable conclusion available to the Committee, in the light of the detailed matters set out above.
It does not seem to me that the council could, rationally, adopt both positions at once . . I do not consider that it is open for me to consider that this inconsistency was simply a function of local democracy at work, and that it could be ignored. . . ‘ The decision could not be saved by exercising a discretion not to quash.

James Dingemans QC
[2013] EWHC 1065 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 61
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Others CA 18-Dec-2013
The claimant had succeeded in a challenge to the grant of planning permission for the building of two barley silos. He said that the development was near and might affect Site of Special Scientic interest. The Council had at the same time said that . .
At first instance – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, European

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510193

Donal Brady v Environmental Protection Agency: ECJ 16 May 2013

ECJ Environment – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Concept of ‘waste’ – Slurry produced on a pig farm – Storage until use as fertiliser – Classification as waste – Classification as a by-product – Burden of proof – Personal liability of the producer for the infringement of European Union law on the control of waste by third parties who use the slurry as fertiliser on their own land – Failure to transpose Directive 91/676 into national law – General principles of European Union law – Fundamental rights – Proportionality
Cruz Villalon AG
C-113/12, [2013] EUECJ C-113/12, [2013] EUECJ C-113/12
Bailii, Bailii
Directive 91/156/EEC, Directive 75/442/EEC

Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.509296

Fishermen and Friends of The Sea v The Minister of Planning, Housing and The Environment: PC 27 Nov 2017

(Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago)
[2017] UKPC 37
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government (or, indeed, anyone else) can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.599995

Wilson and Another v Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority: Admn 19 Jun 2009

The claimants, who promoted responsible motorsports challenged the defendant’s Traffic Regulation Order banning vehicular traffic on certain unsealed roads in the Dales, saying that there was nothing to show that the relevant committee had taken into account the necessary balancing exercise.
Held: The duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular traffic is that prescribed by section 122(1). However that duty takes effect so far as practicable in the light of the matters to be taken into account under section 122(b). In this case the absence if reference to the balancing exercise under section 122 was consistent. The Order was quashed.
[2009] EWHC 1425 (Admin)
Bailii
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 22B92), National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, National Park Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2007, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Environment Act 1995, Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – LPC Group Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) v Leicester City Council Admn 18-Oct-2002
Challenge to parking scheme.
Held: As to section 122 of the 1984 Act, if the Defendant has not had proper regard to the matters set out in section 122(1) and (2) it did not direct its mind to matters it was bound to consider.
Section . .
Cited – UK Waste Management Ltd v West Lancashire District Council; St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Same QBD 5-Apr-1996
It was not a proper purpose of an experimental traffic scheme to seek to ban heavy goods vehicles. The council used traffic calming measures to seek to dissuade heavy goods vehicles using certain roads to get to a waste management site.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.347118

Commission v Italy – C-195/05: ECJ 18 Dec 2007

ECJ Environment and Consumers – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Environment Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Concept of waste Food scraps from the agro’food industry intended for the production of animal feed Leftovers from the preparation of food in kitchens, intended for shelters for pet animals.
[2007] EUECJ C-195/05
Bailii
Directive 75/442/EEC, Directive 91/156/EEC
European

Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.262911

Re Mineral Resources Limited; Environment Agency v Stout (Chd; Apr 1998): ChD 24 Jun 1998

A waste management licence was property, but public policy required that such licences should not be disclaimable by liquidators. There is a need to preserve responsibilities of those taking such licences.
Gazette 24-Jun-1998
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Insolvency Act 1986 178
England and Wales

Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.85837

Friends of The Earth Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Heathrow Airport Ltd: SC 16 Dec 2020

The Court considered a challenge to the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow Airport
Lord Reed, President, Lord Hodge, Deputy President, Lady Black, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt
[2020] UKSC 52, [2021] PTSR 190
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
England and Wales

Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.656804

Commission v France (Exceeding of limit values ??for nitrogen dioxide) (Environment – Judgment): ECJ 24 Oct 2019

Failure by a State to fulfill obligations – Environment – Directive 2008/50 / EC – Ambient air quality – Article 13, paragraph 1, and annex XI – Systematic and persistent exceeding of the limit values ??for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain French zones and agglomerations – Article 23, paragraph 1 – Annex XV – ‘The shortest possible’ overrun period – Appropriate measures
C-636/18, [2019] EUECJ C-636/18
Bailii
European

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.665336

Bown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 26 Mar 2003

The court rejected objections to a proposed bypass on the grounds that it would interfere with otter habitats, and an area which should be designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds.
Held: The Wild Birds Directive had not seperately been implemented into UK law, but rather left to planning legislation. The challenge failed.
Collins J
[2003] EWHC 819 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – 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 by:
Appeal from – 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 – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.185019

Commission v Spain: ECJ 13 Sep 2001

Europa Failure by a State to comply with its obligations – Directive 96/62/EC – Ambient air quality assessment and management – Failure to designate the competent authorities and bodies responsible for implementing the directive.
[2001] EUECJ C-417/99, C-417/99
Bailii
European

Updated: 13 September 2021; Ref: scu.166210

Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Case C-69/99: ECJ 7 Dec 2000

The United Kingdom had failed to comply with the clean water directive. Its had identified surface freshwaters only where abstraction was intended for drinking water purposes. No such restriction was justified. A similar limitation had been incorrectly applied to ground-waters. The directive required identification of sources of excess nitrates, whether or not the source was intended for drinking water. The United Kingdom had also failed to designate vulnerable zones in Northern Ireland which even though they had been identified.
Europa Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 91/676/EEC -Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Identification of waters affected by pollution – Specifying of surface freshwaters.
Times 19-Dec-2000, C-69/99, [2000] EUECJ C-69/99
Bailii
Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 I.375 pl)
European

Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.162614

First Corporate Shipping (Judgment): ECJ 7 Nov 2000

When deciding the extent of natural sites to be proposed for designation as special areas of conservation under the Directive, a member state should take account only of environmental factors, and was not entitled to take heed of economic, social or cultural ones. The article which did include such criteria could only be for the Commission to consider in the light of the entire list of such possible area within the community.
Times 16-Nov-2000, C-371/98, [2000] EUECJ C-371/98
Bailii
Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna
European

Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.162508

Landcatch Limited v The Braer Corporation and Williams and Jones and Hudner and Assurance Foreningen Skuld and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund: IHCS 19 May 1999

The pursuers raised freshwater salmon (smolt) to the age of two before selling them on. An oil spill prevented them trading. They appealed a refusal of damages on the baiss that this was pure relational economic loss.
Held: The appeal failed. Losses which arose following an environmental accident but which were related to particularly advantageous market conditions but for a prospective contract only were properly secondary economic losses and not recoverable under the Act. No distinction was drawn between the smolt that were sold for less than expected and those which were culled.
Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Cowie and Lord McCluskey
Times 14-Jun-1999, [1999] ScotCS 117, [1999] 2 Lloyd’s LR 316
Bailii, ScotC
Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 5(3)
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal from – Landcatch Ltd v The Braer Corporation and Others OHCS 6-Mar-1998
The pursuers reared salmon eggs to the age of two years (smolt), before then selling them on. The defenders caused an oil spill, and the area was designated as an exclusion zone preventing the pursuers continuing their trade and could not sell their . .

Cited by:
Cited – R J Tilbury and Sons (Devon) Ltd t/A East Devon Shellfish v Alegrete Shipping Co Inc (Owners of the Ship ‘Sea Empress’), Assurance Foreningen Skuld (Gjensidig) and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1971 CA 7-Feb-2003
The applicants had a business processing whelks. After the loss of the Sea Empress, an order was made prohibiting the sale of seafood from the area. They appealed a refusal of compensation for their losses. The respondents would be liable to make . .
Cited – D Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others QBD 31-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain.
Held: Much of the damage claimed . .
See Also – Landcatch Limited v International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund IHCS 19-May-1999
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.163549

Commission v France C-374/98: ECJ 7 Dec 2000

Europa (Judgment) The inventory of areas which are of great importance for the conservation of wild birds, more commonly known under the acronym IBA (Inventory of Important Bird Areas in the European Community), although not legally binding on the Member States concerned, contains scientific evidence making it possible to assess whether a Member State has complied with its obligation to classify as special protection areas the most suitable territories in number and size for conservation of the protected species. It follows from the general scheme of Article 4 of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds that, where a given area fulfils the criteria for classification as a special protection area, it must be made the subject of special conservation measures capable of ensuring, in particular, the survival and reproduction of the bird species mentioned in Annex I to that directive. The text of Article 7 of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora expressly states that Article 6(2) to (4) of that directive apply, in substitution for the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, to the areas classified under Article 4(1) or (2) of the latter directive. It follows that, on a literal interpretation of that passage of Article 7 of Directive 92/43, only areas classified as special protection areas fall under the influence of Article 6(2) to (4) of that directive. The fact that the protection regime under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 applies to areas that have not been classified as special protection areas but should have been so classified does not in itself imply that the protection regime referred to in Article 6(2) to (4) of Directive 92/43 replaces the first regime referred to in relation to those areas.
C-374/98, [2000] ECR I-10799, [2000] EUECJ C-374/98
Bailii
European
Cited by:
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: 18 August 2021; Ref: scu.162510

Commission v Cyprus (Failure Of A Member State To Fulfil Obligations): ECJ 15 Mar 2012

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Articles 4(1) and 12(1) – Failure to include Paralimni Lake as a site of Community importance within the time-limit laid down – System of protection for the species Natrix natrix cypriaca (Cypriot grass snake)
C-340/10, [2012] EUECJ C-340/10
Bailii
Directive 92/43/EEC
European

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.452237

Spurrier, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 1 May 2019

Challenge to policy supporting establishment of third runway at Heathrow Airport
Hickinbottom LJ, Holgate J
[2019] EWHC 1070 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Spurrier, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport Admn 2019
Live streaming of video and audio from a court room is prohibited. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.637794

Commission v Germany (Valeurs Limites – No 2): ECJ 3 Jun 2021

Judgment – Failure by a State to fulfill obligations – Environment – Directive 2008/50 / EC – Ambient air quality – Article 13, paragraph 1, and annex XI – Systematic and persistent exceeding of the limit values ??for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain zones and agglomerations of Germany – Article 23, paragraph 1 – Annex XV – ‘Shortest possible’ overrun period – Appropriate measures
C-635/18, [2021] EUECJ C-635/18, ECLI:EU:C:2021:437
Bailii
European

Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.664263

Commission v France: ECJ 2 May 2002

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Environment – Waste – Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/156/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC – Waste management plans: ‘ . . considering the objectives pursued by the obligation laid down in Article 7(1) of . . [the Waste Framework Directive], it is clear from the very wording of that provision that the obligation is necessary in order for the objectives set out in Articles 3,4 and 5 of that directive to be fully attained (see, by analogy, Case C-387/97 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR O-5057, paragraph 95). Chief among those objectives is the protection of public health and the environment, which is the essence of Community legislation relating to waste. That is the reason why, according to the case-law, a failure to fulfil the obligation to draw up waste management plans must be regarded as serious, even if the failure relates to only a very small part of a Member State’s territory, such as a single department . . or a single area within a valley . . ‘
[2002] ECR I-04097, [2002] EUECJ C-292/99
Bailii
European
Cited by:
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: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.171342

Milton Keynes District Council v Fuller and Another: Admn 23 Jun 2011

The magistrates had concluded that the movement of waste, previously tipped by others in the entrance to the Respondents’ field, did not amount to a ‘deposit’, within s.33(1)(a) of the 1990 Act. The Council appealed against dismissal of it summonses.
Held: The appeal failed. No question of law was involved in the interpretation of the word ‘deposit’; on the facts, the magistrates’ conclusion was ‘perfectly reasonable’. Aikens LJ said that ‘deposit’ is an ‘ordinary and uncomplicated English word . .’ and ‘We cannot impose our own exegesis on the meaning of the word and then apply our meaning to the facts as found by the justices’.
Aikens LJ, Calvert-Smith J
[2011] EWHC 1967 (Admin), [2011] Env LR 31
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Bromley Magistrates’ Court Admn 20-Mar-2013
Sewage had escaped from the company’s facilities. They now sought judicial review of their conviction under the 1990 Act, saying there had been no ‘deposit’ of sewage.
Held: The request for review failed: ‘the answer to the question whether . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.442700