swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Environment - From: 1995 To: 1995
This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1994) Gazette, 08 March 1995; Independent, 31 January 1995; Times, 26 January 1995
31 Jan 1995
CACD
Environment
'Causing' polluting of water may be committed jointly as a result of combining different acts. A lack of maintenance can make a sewage system operator guilty of causing a leak.
Water Act 1989 107
Regina v Dovermoss Ltd Gazette, 15 March 1995; Times, 08 February 1995; [1995] Env L R 258
8 Feb 1995
CA
Environment, Utilities, Crime
Contamination below the maximum set limits can still be pollution. A dry watercourse is controlled water, as are streams and drains. Pollution is an ordinary English word defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as 'to make physically impure, foul or filthy, to dirty, stain, taint or re-foul'. It is therefore not necessary to show that water is harmed to show that it is polluted.
Water Resources Act 1991 85(1)
1 Citers
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; HL 10-Feb-1995 - Times, 10 February 1995
Carr v Hackney London Borough Council Times, 09 March 1995; (1996) 28 HLR 747
9 Mar 1995
QBD
McKinnon J
Environment
The council tenant plaintiff alleged a statutory nuisance against the council in the form of condensation, damp and mould in his flat. When it came to the hearing the damp had abated. The magistrates asked whether it was likely to recur. The council replied that they had offered to install heaters in the property which would deal with the problem, but the plantiff had refused saying that gas-central heating would be cheaper. They therefore said that responsibility for any recurrence would lie with the tenant. The tenant appealed saying that the defence allowed, that the council was 'not the person whose act or default or sufferance gave rise to the nuisance or its continuance. Held: The tenant's appeal failed. A defendant can avoid liability for a nuisance by pointing out the genuine originator of the nuisance.
Environmental Protection Act 1990 82 - Public Health Act 1936
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Secretary of State for Transport Ex Parte Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Others Times, 11 May 1995
11 May 1995
QBD
Environment
Inconsistencies in consultation paper not for judicial review; they were part of a political process.
Civil Aviation Act 1982 78
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte Friends of the Earth and Another Times, 08 June 1995; Independent, 07 June 1995
7 Jun 1995
CA
Environment, Utilities, European
The Secretary of State can accept an undertaking from water companies instead of making an order to satisfy the obligations under the European directives.
Water Industry Act 1991 68(1)(a)
Losinjska Plovidba v Transco Overseas Ltd and Others Times, 18 July 1995
18 Jul 1995
QBD
Environment, Torts - Other
A company which releases dangerous chemicals is liable in tort if it fails to clean up those chemicals.
Evans v Waverley Borough Council Times, 18 July 1995
18 Jul 1995
CA
Environment, Land, Local Government
A Local Authority has no power to change a tree preservation order to 'woodland' on the making of the order.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 199-1
Westminster City Council v Riding Times, 31 July 1995
31 Jul 1995
QBD
Environment
Commercial waste bagged ready for collection can be 'litter' but not necessarily.
Environmental Protection Act 1976
Greenpeace and others v Commission T-585/93; [1995] EUECJ T-585/93
9 Aug 1995
ECFI
European, Utilities, Environment
ECJ 1. Persons other than the addressees may claim that a decision is of individual concern to them only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them, or by reason of factual circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and thereby distinguish them individually in the same way as the person addressed. The criterion thereby applied, which requires a combination of circumstances sufficient for the third-party applicant to be able to claim that he is affected by the contested decision in a manner which differentiates him from all other persons, remains applicable whatever the nature, economic or otherwise, of the interests affected.
Even on the assumption that, where interests linked to environmental protection are involved, the mere existence of harm suffered or to be suffered can give rise to an interest in bringing an action for annulment, that harm cannot confer locus standi on an applicant if it is such as to affect, generally and in the abstract, a large number of persons who cannot be determined in advance in a way which distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee of a decision. That conclusion cannot be affected by the fact that in the practice of national courts in matters relating to environmental protection locus standi may depend merely on the applicants' having a "sufficient" interest, since locus standi under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty depends on meeting the conditions relating to the applicant' s being directly and individually affected by the contested decision.
2. As regards persons who rely only on their position as residents in the area of those power stations, fishermen, farmers or persons concerned by the consequences which those facilities might have on local tourism, on the health of residents and on the environment, a decision addressed to a Member State granting financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund for the construction of two power stations is a measure whose effects are likely to impinge on, objectively, generally and in the abstract, various categories of person and in fact any person residing or staying temporarily in the area concerned. It does not, therefore, affect them by reason of certain attributes which differentiate them from any other person who is, or might be in the future, in the same situation, and is thus not of individual concern to them within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.
3. The granting of financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund does not comprise any specific procedures whereby individuals may be associated with the adoption, implementation and monitoring of decisions taken in that field. Merely submitting a complaint relating to funding which is envisaged and subsequently exchanging correspondence with the Commission cannot therefore give a complainant locus standi to bring an action under Article 173 of the Treaty against a financing decision which was not addressed to him and which does not concern him individually as if it had been addressed to him.
4. An association formed for the protection of the collective interests of a category of persons cannot be considered to be individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty by a measure affecting the general interests of that category, and is therefore not entitled to bring an action for annulment where its members may not do so individually. However, special circumstances such as the role played by an association in a procedure which led to the adoption of an act within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty may justify holding admissible an action brought by an association whose members are not directly and individually concerned by the contested measure. There are no such circumstances in the case of an environmental protection association seeking to bring an action for the annulment of a Commission decision addressed to a Member State granting financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund for the construction of two power stations, which relies for that purpose on an exchange of correspondence and a meeting with the Commission in that connection. Such contacts do not enable such an association to rely on an individual interest where the Commission did not, prior to the adoption of the contested decision, initiate any procedure in which the association was recognized as an interlocutor and where the contacts were for purposes of information only, since the Commission was under no duty either to consult or to hear the association before adopting its decision.
[ Bailii ]
New Zealand v France Ind Summary, 16 October 1995
16 Oct 1995
ICJ
Environment
Court had no power to revive 70's claim though left open; different nuclear test.
Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Duddridge and Others Times, 26 October 1995; Independent, 20 October 1995
20 Oct 1995
CA
Environment
The Maastricht environmental commitment imposed no binding obligation on a government of itself. The unproven possibility of a medical effect of radiation from power supply lines was no justification for new rules.
Electricity Act 1989 - Maastricht Treaty
1 Cites
1 Citers
National Rivers Authority v Biffa Waste Services Ltd; QBD 21-Nov-1995 - Times, 21 November 1995
Danielsson, Largenteau and Haoa v Commission of the European Communities T-219/95; [1995] EUECJ T-219/95
22 Dec 1995
ECFI
European, Jurisdiction, Environment
ECFI Nuclear tests conducted by a Member State - Application for interim relief -Article 34 of the EAEC Treaty - Application for suspension of the operation of a Commission decision regarding nuclear tests. In principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main action should not be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, so as not to prejudge the Court' s decision on the substance of the case. It should be reserved for the examination of the main action, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible. When that is the case, for example because the applicant is seeking the annulment of a decision addressed to a Member State and cannot be regarded as being prima facie individually concerned by that decision, the interim application must be dismissed.
EAEC Treaty 34
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Greenwich London Borough Council, Ex Parte Williams and Others; QBD 29-Dec-1995 - Ind Summary, 29 January 1996; Times, 29 December 1995