The Agency sought to impose liability on the appellant to remediate land which had been polluted by the appellant’s predecessor, the East Midlands Gas Board, claiming it to be a responsible as successor.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the appellant is plainly not, as a matter of ordinary language, a ‘person . . who caused or knowingly permitted’ the contamination to occur: it is a company which (albeit indirectly) acquired the business and assets of such a person. The respondent’s case does not merely run into problems because of the clear language of section 78F(2) of the 1990 Act. If the section is to be interpreted as extending to a successor to the business of the original polluter, is the extension to be limited to a statutory successor, or to a successor who has not acquired the business at arm’s length, or to a successor who has occupied or owned the land, or is it to apply to any successor to the business? ‘
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
 UKHL 30, Times 28-Jun-2007
England and Wales
Appeal from – National Grid Gas Plc, Regina (on the Application of) v The Environment Agency Admn 17-May-2006
The claimant sought a judicial review of the decision to hold them responsible for necessary works of remediation. They were statutory successors to British Gas Corporation.
Held: The legislation clearly attempted to hold the contaminator . .
Applied – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253721