Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte Friends of the Earth and Another: CA 7 Jun 1995

The Secretary of State can accept an undertaking from water companies instead of making an order to satisfy the obligations under the European directives.

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-1995, Independent 07-Jun-1995

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991 68(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Utilities, European

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.87792

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Duddridge and Others: CA 20 Oct 1995

The Maastricht environmental commitment imposed no binding obligation on a government of itself. The unproven possibility of a medical effect of radiation from power supply lines was no justification for new rules.

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-1995, Independent 20-Oct-1995

Statutes:

Electricity Act 1989, Maastricht Treaty

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Duddridge and Others QBD 4-Oct-1994
Secretary of State was under no duty to issue regulations to protect against low level electromagnetic radiation. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toRegina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Duddridge and Others QBD 4-Oct-1994
Secretary of State was under no duty to issue regulations to protect against low level electromagnetic radiation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.87951

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 the unintended escape of sewage amounted to a ‘deposit’ within s.33(1)(a) of the Act, is not to be found in dictionary definitions. However, when construed in the context both of sub-section (1)(a) and s.33 as a whole, the preponderance of the argument favours and clearly so, the word ‘deposit’ including unintended escapes. The contrary argument, that this construction results in an unsatisfactory overlap with s.34 of the Act, falls to the ground because s.34 is inapplicable in such circumstances. Conscious though I am that s.33 gives rise to a penal provision, I am satisfied that the usual and strong presumption of a mens rea is here displaced.’

Judges:

Gross LJ, Singh J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 472 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a)

Citing:

CitedShanks and Mcewan (Southern Waste Services) Ltd v Environment Agency Admn 14-Oct-1997
Mance J explained the need to construe the statute so as to identify the rule of attribution appropriate to the relevant statutory offence: ‘The rule of attribution appropriate to a particular situation (e.g., the nature and level of conduct or . .
CitedMilton 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 . .
CitedRegina (Thames Water Utilities) v The South East London Division, Bromley Magistrates’ Court ECJ 8-Feb-2007
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) – Treatment of waste water Directive 75/442 Directive 91/271 Waste Concept . .
CitedGateway Professional Services (Management) Ltd v Kingston Upon Hull City Council Admn 8-Mar-2004
An employee of the appellant had deposited a number of black bags containing commercial office waste on the land adjoining the appellant’s own premises. The prosecutor said that the deposit of the bags of waste in those circumstances amounted to an . .
CitedScott and Another v Westminster City Council CA 20-Mar-1995
A vendor’s ‘hot chestnut’ stall was an ‘item deposited on highway’ and could be removed by the Council under the 1980 Act. Waite LJ said: ‘The verb ‘to deposit’ is a term of wide connotation, apt to describe any state of affairs in which one object . .
CitedRemet Co Ltd v Newham London Borough Council QBD 1981
The defendants, when loading non-ferrous metal swarf on to lorries standing on the highway, from time to time miscalculated the available space in a lorry being loaded, and some of the swarf accidentally fell on to the road. In respect of three such . .
CitedGammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v A-G of Hong Kong PC 1984
Lord Scarman expressed the purpose of imposing strict liability within criminal law: ‘In their Lordships’ opinion, the law relevant to this appeal may be stated in the following propositions . . : (1) there is a presumption of law that mens rea is . .
CitedSweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Environment

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471921

A M L Van Rouge v Dagelijks Bestuur Van Het Waterschap De Dommel (Gebr Van Aarle Bv, Third Party): ECJ 15 Oct 1999

ECJ The directive relating to the discharge of dangerous substances into aquatic environments, included the precipitation of contaminated steam onto a water course. Pollution is defined as discharge into the water, and discharge as introduction of listed substances into the water. The contaminated steam settled upon the water and contaminated it. Not to prosecute would limit the effectiveness of the Directive.

Citations:

Times 15-Oct-1999, C-231/97, [1999] EUECJ C-231/97

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 76/464/EEC On pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment.

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.77590

National Rivers Authority v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd: QBD 3 Feb 1994

A company was criminally liable for the acts of its employees which had been carried out within the normal course of their employment.

Citations:

Times 03-Feb-1994, Independent 03-Feb-1994, [1994] 4 All ER 286

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Vicarious Liability, Company

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.84187

Clientearth, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: CA 30 May 2012

The claimant appealed against refusal of its request for declaratory relief, the respondent having admitted failing to implement the Directive on the control of nitrogen dioxide.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had been correct that the compliance by the respondent was not mandatory as to the time suggested. He was correct: ‘I cannot accept that the legislature intended by the terms of Article 22 to create a mandatory and absolute cut-off point for compliance with NO2 limit values as at 1 January 2015. ‘
and ‘it seems to me that he was, with respect, plainly right and the contrary is not contended. His judgment speaks as a declaration. No substantive issue of effective judicial protection arises from his refusal to grant a formal declaration.’

Judges:

Laws, Pitchford LJJ, Sir John Chadwick

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 897, [2013] Env LR 4

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2008/50/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromClientearth, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 13-Dec-2011
The claimant sought declaratory and mandatory orders in respect of the Government’s failure to comply with emission limits set by Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 21 May 2008. Article 13 of that Directive required . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromClientearth, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 1-May-2013
The court gave its reasons for referring to the ECJ, the question asked of it, as to the failure of the respondent to ensure compliance with the EU Directive on Nitrogen dioxide control, and the consequential orders. However, a declaration was . .
Appeal fromClientearth, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 29-Apr-2015
The applicant had challenged the failure by the governement to secure appropriate air quality standards. The question had earlier been referred to the ECJ, and the Court now considered the appropriate orders following the ECJ judgment.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, European

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461947

Greenwich London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment and Another: CA 2 Mar 1993

When the Secretary of State considered the offer of land in substitution for other land, an ancient woodland and site of special scientific interest, which was sought to be compulsorily acquired for a roadway, he was entitled to assess whether the exchanged land would be equally advantageous at the time when the exchange would take place, and to exercise a degree of flexibility.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-Mar-1993, Times 02-Mar-1993, [1993] CLY 439

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Acquisition of Land Act 1981 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Land

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81017

Regina v CPC (UK) Ltd, CPC (UK) Ltd v National Rivers Authority: CACD 4 Aug 1994

The defendant operated a factory, using cleaning liquid carried through PVC piping. The piping leaked because it had been badly installed by the reputable subcontractors employed by the previous owners of the factory.
Held: Although the defendants were unaware of the existence of the defect and ‘could not be criticised for failing to discover it,’ the pollution had nevertheless been caused by their operation of the factory. So the fact that the negligent installation of the pipes had been unforeseeable was no defence. Liability for river pollution is strict. It existed even where the owner had no knowledge of a leak in a pipe put in before he acquired the land. Whether he had caused the pollution remained a question of fact for the jury.

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

Independent 30-Aug-1994, Times 04-Aug-1994, [1994] Env LR 131

Statutes:

Water Resources Act 1991 85(1) 209

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEmpress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Utilities, Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.86463

Deutsche Bank Ag v Total Global Steel Ltd: ComC 11 May 2012

The claimant claimed damages of 5,781,000 Euros from the defendant for breach of four contracts by which DB acquired from TGS through the European Union Emissions Trading System for 5,737,440 Euros a total of 492,000 Certified Emissions Reductions (‘CERs’), which are instruments created under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (‘UNFCCC’). DB’s claim is that the contracts provided that the CERs ‘may be used for determining compliance with emissions limitation commitments pursuant to and in accordance with the [EUETS]’. They complain that the CERs that they acquired from TGS did not meet that requirement (i) because they had previously been ‘surrendered’ under the EUETS, that is to say exchanged for allowances, and the European Commission, as regulator of the EUETS, had introduced and published in December 2009 and January 2010 a check that prevented surrendered CERs from being used for compliance purposes under it, and (ii) in any case, they argue, surrendered CERs could not legally have been so used. (I shall adopt the expression ‘surrendered CERs’ as a convenient label, and I shall refer to CERs that have not been surrendered as ‘conventional CERs’.

Judges:

Andrew Smith J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1201 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Environment

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457627

Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2): QBD 31 Jul 2000

Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and that the development conflicted with the applicable unitary development plan.
Held: The intent of the legislation had been satisfied, and as much information as was available had been provided. Some residual flexibility was inevitable: ‘a legalistic approach to the interpretation of development plan policies is to be avoided’. It was also common for such permissions to conflict in part with the UDP.
Where outline planning consent is being applied for, it is at the outline consent stage that the planning authority must have sufficient details of the proposed development, sufficient details of any impact on the environment, and sufficient details of any mitigation to enable it to comply with its article 4(2) obligation. An authority need not require further details of a matter where it is ‘satisfied that such details , provided they are sufficiently controlled by condition, are not likely to have significant effect.’ Mr Jones submits that such is the case here. There was a well established mitigating technique involving negative pressure which virtually eliminated any environmental problem. A planning authority is entitled to assume that the Environmental Agency will carry out its functions ‘with a reasonable degree of competence.’
‘the development which is described and assessed in the Environmental Statement must be the development which is proposed to be carried out and therefore the development which is a subject of the development consent and not some other development’ and the ‘ . . ..local planning authority will need to be satisfied that the description of the proposed development in the outline planning permission is adequate, given that it will be able to impose conditions in respect of reserved matters so that matters of detail can be dealt with at a later stage’.
and ‘Any major development project will be subject to a number of detailed controls, not all of them included within the planning permission. Emissions to air, discharges into water, disposal of the waste produced by the project, will all be subject to controls under legislation dealing with environmental protection. In assessing the likely significant environmental effects of a project the authors of the environmental statement and the local planning authority are entitled to rely on the operation of those controls with a reasonable degree of competence on the part of the responsible authority: see, for example, the assumptions made in respect of construction impacts, above. The same approach should be adopted to the local planning authority’s power to approve reserved matters. Mistakes may occur in any system of detailed controls, but one is identifying and mitigating the ‘likely significant effects’, not every conceivable effect, however minor or unlikely, of a major project.’
‘It is not at all unusual for development plan policies to pull in different directions. A proposed development may be in accord with development plan policies which, for example, encourage development for employment purposes, and yet be contrary to policies which seek to protect open countryside. In such cases there may be no clear cut answer to the question: ‘is this proposal in accordance with the plan?’ The local planning authority has to make a judgment bearing in mind such factors as the importance of the policies which are complied with or infringed, and the extent of compliance or breach.’

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Gazette 31-Aug-2000, [2001] JPL 470, [2001] Env LR 406, (2001) 81 PandCR 365

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 54A 70

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Se AlsoRegina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Andrew Tew; George Daniel Milne; and Steven Garner Admn 7-May-1999
An outline application for a shopping development, gave no details of the expected floor area, and nor was there an environmental assessment.
Held: The failure to give the floor area was not critical, but even at this stage the ommission of . .
CitedCity of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland and Another; Same v Same (Conjoined Appeals) HL 31-Oct-1997
The Listed buildings registers are to be read consistently; the trading level is a material consideration in listed buildings consent applications. The weight to be given to a material consideration once identified was a matter of judgment for the . .
CitedRegina v North Yorkshire County Council, ex parte Brown and Another HL 12-Feb-1999
When a mineral planning authority set conditions on the continued operation of a quarry which had been operating since pre-1947, that decision was a development consent, and it required to be supported by an environmental impact assessment, since it . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Environment ex parte Webster Admn 8-Mar-1999
A legalistic approach to the interpretation of policies in local and other plans is to be avoided. . .
CitedBerkeley 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 . .
CitedWorld Wildlife Fund and Others v Autonome Provinz Bozen and Others ECJ 12-Oct-1999
The court considered a project for converting Bolzano airport in Italy from military to civilian use. The national law did not require the project to be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The court asked whether the national law . .
CitedRegina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte Trustees of the Council for the Protection of Rural England CA 12-Jun-2000
. .
CitedRegina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte Trustees of the Council for the Protection of Rural England QBD 26-Oct-1999
The authority gave permission for a new shopping centre up to 600,000 sq ft as an urban project. The Trustees sought that the permission be set aside since the council had not undertaken an environmental impact assessment, and under the EC Treaty . .

Cited by:

CitedHereford Waste Watchers Ltd v Hereford Council Admn 18-Feb-2005
. .
CitedJones, Regina (on the Application Of) v Mansfield District Council Admn 20-Jan-2003
. .
CitedRegina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others Admn 19-Dec-2001
. .
CitedBurkett, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham Admn 15-May-2003
Outline permission was granted for a large development, reserving certain matters. The applicant challenged the permission saying that the application had not included the information required under the Regulations, and the authority had failed to . .
CitedPPG11 Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Dorset County Council and Another Admn 6-Jun-2003
. .
CitedKent, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and others Admn 3-Dec-2004
. .
CitedJD Wetherspoon Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) v Guildford Borough Council Admn 11-Apr-2006
The company sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to apply its cumulative impact policy to their application for extended licensing hours.
Held: The company’s application amounted to a material variation of the license, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.87639

Sinclair v Information Commissioner, Department of Energy and Climate Change: FTTGRC 8 Nov 2011

FTTGC Environmental Information Regulations – disclosure of information – exception for internal communications – regulation 12(4)(e) – exception where adverse effect on international relations – regulation 12(5)(a) – public interest balance

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT EA – 2011 – 0052 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Environment

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449720

MWH Associates Ltd v Wrexham County Borough Council: UTLC 19 Jul 2011

UTLC COMPENSATION – modification order – review of mineral planning permission under Environment Act 1995 – basis of claim – whether depreciation of the value of land or loss of profits – Habitats Regulations 1994 – proposed use contrary to law – insufficient evidence to establish depreciation of value of land – whether loss directly attributable to modification order – claimant not intending to work the land – derogation licence to translocate great crested newts would not have been granted in absence of modification order – no compensation payable

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 269 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environment Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromMWH Associates Ltd v Wrexham County Borough Council CA 28-Nov-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445671

The Air Transport Association of America and Others: ECJ 6 Oct 2011

ECJ Environment – Greenhouse gases – Emission allowances – EU scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading (‘EU emissions trading scheme’) – Inclusion of aviation activities – International aviation – Public international law – Compatibility of secondary European Union legislation with international agreements and customary international law – Directives 2003/87/EC and 2008/101/EC

Citations:

C-366/10, [2011] EUECJ C-366/10, [2011] EUECJ C-366/10

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445414

Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt District Council and Others v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland: ECJ 14 Jul 2011

ECJ Opinion – Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Consultation procedure – Designation of the authorities with environmental responsibilities – Time-limits set for the purposes of the consultation procedure.

Judges:

Bot AG

Citations:

C-474/10, [2011] EUECJ C-474/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2001/42/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

OpinionSeaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt District Council and Others v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland ECJ 20-Oct-2011
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2001/42/EC – Article 6 – Designation, for consultation purposes, of an authority likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans and programmes – Possibility of authority to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Environment

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441856

Buglife, Regina (on The Application of) v Natural England: Admn 30 Mar 2011

The court established a new principle (concerning time limits for starting judicial review proceedings and the effect of the ECJ’s decision in Uniplex) and extended the law (concerning multi-stage EIAs provided for by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008).

Judges:

Anthony Thornton QC J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 746 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Environment

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.440073

Pesce And Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and others: ECJ 9 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Preliminary reference – Protection of plant health – Directive 2000/29 / EC – Protection against the introduction and spread in the EU of organisms harmful to plants or plant products – Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 – measures to prevent the introduction and spread in the Xylella fastidiosa Union (Wells and Raju) – Article 6, paragraph 2 a) – Obligation to carry out the immediate removal of host plants, whatever their health status, in a 100 meter radius around the infected plant – Validity – Article 16, paragraph 3 of Directive 2000/29 – Principle of proportionality – precautionary principle – Obligation to state reasons – Right to compensation

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2016:428, C-78/16, [2016] EUECJ C-78/16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2000/29 / EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.565628

Regina on the Application of Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: CA 4 Nov 2003

The applicant farmer had substantial volumes of potentially contaminated carcasses on his land. The respondent derogated from the European regulations which would have arranged for the disposal of the carcasses. The respondent challenged the standing of the applicant to seek review of the decision. The judge acknowledged the possibility that the applicant had only his private interests at heart, but considered that he could proceed because of the significance of the decision under review. The applicant’s motive was capable of being relevant, but was not such here as to make the application an abuse.
Dyson LJ addressed the question of abuse of process in the context of Judicial Review proceedings, saying: ‘In my judgment, if a claimant has no sufficient private interest to support a claim to standing, then he should not be accorded standing merely because he raises an issue in which there is, objectively speaking, a public interest. As Sedley J said in R v Somerset County Council, Ex p Dixon [1997] JPL 1030, when considering the issue of standing, the court had to ensure that the claimant was not prompted by an ill motive, and was not a mere busybody or a trouble-maker. Thus, if a claimant seeks to challenge a decision in which he has no private law interest, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the court will accord him standing, even where there is a public interest in testing the lawfulness of the decision, if the claimant is acting out of ill-will or for some other improper purpose. It is an abuse of process to permit a claimant to bring a claim in such circumstances. If the real reason why a claimant wishes to challenge a decision in which, objectively, there is a public interest is not that he has a genuine concern about the decision, but some other reason, then that is material to the question whether he should be accorded standing.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1546, Times 07-Nov-2003, Gazette 02-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1761

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMount Cook Land Ltd and Another v Westminster City Council CA 14-Oct-2003
The applicants had sought judicial review of the defendant’s grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the former CandA building in Oxford Street. Though the application for leave to apply had been successful, and a full hearing took . .
Appeal fromFeakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 20-Dec-2002
. .
See AlsoDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .
CitedLand Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) CA 18-Dec-2009
The claimants wanted planning permission to redevelop land. The defendant firm of solicitors, their tenants, had challenged the planning permission. The claimants alleged that that opposition was a tortious abuse because its true purpose was to . .
Now set asideFeakins and Another v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 8-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to re-open their appeal saying that the respondent department had failed properly to describe the workings of the clawback scheme under which its claim had been made.
Held: A DEFRA official had provided materially . .
CitedGood Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .
See AlsoDepartment for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
. .
See AlsoFeakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Environment, Judicial Review

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.187505

Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini And Eolica Di Altamura: ECJ 14 Apr 2011

ECJ Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 79/409/EEC – Conservation of wild birds – Natura 2000 – Directive 2001/77/EC – Renewable energy sources – National rules – Prohibition of location of wind turbines not intended for self-consumption in sites forming part of the ecological network Natura 2000 – No assessment of implications of project for site.

Citations:

C-2/10, [2011] EUECJ C-2/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433375

Redland Minerals Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Others: Admn 4 Feb 2010

Application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings to challenge a remediation notice made under section 78E of the Environment Protection Act 1990

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 913 (Admin), [2011] Env LR 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431928

Office Of Communications v UK Information Commissioner: ECJ 10 Mar 2011

ECJ (Opinion of Advocate General Kokott) Directive 2003/4/EC – Access to environmental information – Exceptions – Public interest in disclosure – Interest served by refusal – Balancing exercise – Cumulation of interests.

Citations:

C-71/10, [2011] EUECJ C-71/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

OpinionOffice Of Communications v UK Information Commissioner ECJ 28-Jul-2011
ECJ Public access to environmental information – Directive 2003/4/EC – Article 4 – Exceptions to the right of access – Request for access involving more than one of the interests protected under Article 4(2) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Information

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430719

Commission v Ireland C-50/09: ECJ 3 Mar 2011

ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 85/337/EEC – Obligation of the competent environmental authority to carry out an assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – More than one competent authority – Need to ensure an assessment of the interaction between factors likely to be directly or indirectly affected – Application of the directive to demolition works.

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2011:109, [2011] EUECJ C-50/09, [2011] PTSR 1122, [2011] ECR I-873, [2011] Env LR 25

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedHS2 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: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430336

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.

Judges:

Moses LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2752 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Renewables Obligation Order 2009, Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromTate 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425656

Ethos Recycling Ltd v Barking and Dagenham Magistrates Court: Admn 13 Nov 2009

The company sought judicial review of the deceision by the respondent to issue an abatement notice. It said that under section 79 of the 1990 Act, such a notice fell within the term ‘summary proceedings’ and that therefore the consent of the secretary of State should first have been obtained.
Held: The notice did not require the consent suggested. Historically urgent action was often required, and requiring the consent would go against that. A notice was not itself the commencement of proceedings. Consent would be required when, on a non-compliance, the authority wanted to take the matter forward to the court.

Judges:

Lord Justice Scott Baker and Mr Justice Cranston

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2885 (Admin), Times 02-Feb-2010

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(10)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Crime

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380331

Belize Alliance of Conservation Non-Governmental Organisations v Department of the Environment and Another (No 2): PC 13 Aug 2003

(Belize) The applicants sought an interim order preventing continuation of the building of a dam, saying that the environmental damage had not been properly aanticipated.
Held: The Board of the Council did have power to grant an interim injunction to preserve the situation pending a final ruling. That power derived from the power of any superior court to supervise its own procedures. The principles to be applied were the general ones applying those from American Cynamid, amended as necessary to accord with the context of public law. However, here the very substantial works were already under way, the claimants were understandably unable to undertake for any damages, and the balance of convenience lay against the applicants, and no order should be made.

Judges:

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Sir Martin Nourse Sir Andrew Leggatt

Citations:

[2003] UKPC 63, Times 25-Sep-2003, Gazette 16-Oct-2003, [2004] 2 P and CR 2, [2004] Env LR 16, [2003] 1 WLR 2839

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

CitedThomas Reckley v The Minister of Public Safety and Immigration and others (Petition for a stay of execution) PC 13-Jun-1995
(The Bahamas) If a serious constitutional issue is fairly raised by an appeal as to the constitutionality of the death penalty, then the death penalty must be stayed. . .
CitedHer Majesty’s Attorney General v Punch Limited and another HL 12-Dec-2002
A former MI5 agent, Mr Shayler, was to be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, and an injunction against publication was granted. The respondent published further works by Mr Shayler, and now appealed a finding that it had acted in contempt of . .
CitedAmerican Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .

Cited by:

See AlsoBelize Alliance of Conservation Non-Governmental Organisations v The Department of the Environment Belize Electric Company Limited PC 29-Jan-2004
PC (Belize) Lord Walker said: ‘It is now clear that proceedings for judicial review should not be conducted in the same manner as hard fought commercial litigation. A Respondent authority owes a duty to the court . .
CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
CitedCherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General SCS 11-Sep-2019
(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster.
Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Litigation Practice, Environment

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.185741

Commune de Braine-le-Chateau and Michel Tillieut and Others v Region Wallonee: ECJ 1 Apr 2004

ECJ Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Waste – Management plans – Suitable sites and installations for waste disposal – Permit granted in the absence of a management plan containing a map specifying planned locations for disposal sites. The Court referred to the Directive as ‘a policy framework’ . . which need not necessarily describe in minute detail all aspects of current and future waste disposal management, including sites.’ Management plans may not be determinative: ‘ . . management plans cannot in all cases be the only factor which determines the exact location of waste disposal sites, inasmuch as the final decision concerning location in some circumstances depends on the relevant rules relating to land-use planning and, in particular, the consultation and decision-making procedures implemented pursuant to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment . . as amended . . ‘

Judges:

Advocate General Mishko

Citations:

C-53/02, [2004] EUECJ C-53/02

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 75/442/EEC, Directive 91/156/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedDerbyshire 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.

Environment

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.195725

Regina v Greenwich London Borough Council, Ex Parte Williams and Others: QBD 29 Dec 1995

QBD A local authority has no power to close a road to control pollution from motor vehicles. Air pollution danger from traffic was not a sufficient ‘likelihood of danger.’

Citations:

Ind Summary 29-Jan-1996, Times 29-Dec-1995

Statutes:

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Environment

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.86767

Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Bromley Magistrates Court: Admn 28 Jul 2008

Whether escapes of waste water from a public sewerage system are ‘Directive waste’ within the scope of the Waste Framework Directive, and thus subject to the enforcement authority of the Environment Agency under section 33 of the 1990 Act.

Judges:

Carnwath LJ, Bean J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1763 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 33

Utilities, Environment, European

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272301

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.

Citations:

C-142/07, [2008] EUECJ C-142/07

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC)

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedSave 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271121

Commission v Italy – C-263/05: 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’ – Substances or objects intended for disposal or recovery operations Production residues capable of re-use.

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ C-263/05

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 75/442/EEC, Directive 91/156/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262912

International Association of Independent Tanker Owners and others v Secretary of State for Transport: ECJ 20 Nov 2007

ECJ (Environment and Consumers) Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom). Directive 2005/35/EC Ship-source pollution Serious negligence United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol)).

Citations:

C-308/06, [2007] EUECJ C-308/06 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See AlsoInternational Association of Independent Tanker Owners and others v Secretary of State for Transport ECJ 3-Jun-2008
Maritime transport Ship-source pollution Directive 2005/35/EC – Validity United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Marpol 73/78 Convention – Legal effects of the Conventions – Ability to rely on them Serious negligence – Principle of legal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261480

Commission v Italy C-255/05: ECJ 5 Jul 2007

ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Waste recovery – Implementation of the ‘third line’ of the Brescia waste incinerator – Publicity for the application for a permit – Directives 75/442/EEC, 85/337/EEC and 2000/76/EC.

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ C-255/05

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258194

Rampion et Godard, epouse Rampion v Franfinance SA et K par K SAS: ECJ 29 Mar 2007

ECJ Directive 87/102 / EEC Credit for consumption interdependence between the credit agreement and the contract of sale of goods or services financed Terms mention goods or services financed in the credit agreement Applicability of office by the national court of the domestic provisions on the interdependence between the credit agreement and the sales contract adopted in transposition of the Directive

Citations:

C-429/05, [2007] EUECJ C-429/05, [2008] Bus LR 715, [2007] ECR I-8017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Consumer

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251130

Greenpeace Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: CA 31 Oct 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1656

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal FromGreenpeace Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 10-Oct-2005
Greenpeace asserted that the respondent had failed to make adequate arrangements to protect the common dolphin from unintended mortality from fishing activities as it was required to do under the Regulation. Measures had been proposed but they were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Environment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238603

Commission v Spain C-26/04: ECJ 15 Dec 2005

ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 76/160/EEC – Quality of bathing waters – Designation as bathing areas – Directive 79/923/EEC – Quality of shellfish waters – Establishment of a pollution reduction programme.

Citations:

[2005] EUECJ C-26/04, [2006] Env LR D8, [2005] ECR I-11059

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236400

Rockware Glass Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Chester City Council and Another: Admn 24 Oct 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2250 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRockware Glass Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Quinn Glass Ltd and Another CA 15-Jun-2006
Challenge to terms of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control permit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Planning

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231575

EU-Wood-Trading GmbH v Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH: ECJ 16 Dec 2004

ECJ Environment – Waste – Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste – Waste intended for recovery – Objections – Powers of the authority of dispatch – Recovery contravening the requirements of Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC or those of national provisions – Power of the authority of dispatch to raise such objections.

Citations:

[2004] EUECJ C-277/02, C-277/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220612

Regina on the Application of JHM Newsum v Welsh Assembly Government: CA 22 Nov 2004

The claimant had been granted judicial review of a refusal to translocate a population of great crested newts. They wanted to quarry the land occipied by the newts, and planning permission had been granted for this work. The respondent appealed.
Held: The grant of planning permission itself did not demonstrate that the quarrying was a purpose to be described as ‘an imperative reason of overriding public interest.’ The Assembly were entitled to take the view, independent of the planning authorities, as to whether the purpose on which the Trustees relied did provide an imperative reason of overriding public interest. On that basis the challenge to their decision was rejected.

Judges:

Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Mantell

Citations:

[2004] EWCA (Civ) 1565, Times 07-Dec-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 44(2)(e), European Directive on the Conservation of Natural habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora [92/43/EEC]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220048

Tombesi: ECJ 25 Jun 1997

(Environment And Consumers) Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/9

Citations:

C-224/95, [1997] EUECJ C-224/95

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 91/689/EEC, Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/9, Council Directive 91/156/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See AlsoEuro Tombesi, Santella etc ECJ 25-Jun-1997
ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 . .
See AlsoTombesi and Others ECJ 25-Jun-1997
ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 . .

Cited by:

See AlsoCriminal 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215812

Tombesi and Others: ECJ 25 Jun 1997

ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93

Citations:

C-330/94, [1997] EUECJ C-330/94

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93, Directive 91/689/EEC, Directive 91/156/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See AlsoEuro Tombesi, Santella etc ECJ 25-Jun-1997
ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 . .

Cited by:

See AlsoTombesi ECJ 25-Jun-1997
(Environment And Consumers) Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/9 . .
See AlsoCriminal 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215813

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.
‘other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources’ – clearly applies to activities, such as mining or quarrying, or dragging for cockles.

Citations:

C-127/02, [2004] EUECJ C-127/02, [2005] Env LR 14, [2005] 2 CMLR 31, [2004] NPC 136, [2005] All ER (EC) 353, [2004] ECR-7405

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedEdwards, 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 . .
CitedBoggis 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 . .
CitedSave 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 . .
CitedChampion, 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.

Environment, Planning

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214233

In Re Rhondda Waste Disposal Company Ltd (In Administration): ChD 13 Aug 1999

Where a company had gone into administration, it was not correct for a criminal prosecution under the Act to proceed without first getting the consent of the court or of the company’s administrator. Such proceedings constituted ‘other proceedings’ under the Insolvency Act. The divisional court was not bound by decisions of the Court of Session where the decision was not on all fours with the instant case.

Citations:

Times 13-Aug-1999

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990, Insolvency Act 1986 10 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.82150

King and others v Brandywine Reinsurance Co (UK) Ltd: QBD 11 May 2004

Judges:

Mr Justice Coleman Colman

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1033 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromKing v Brandywine Reinsurance Company CA 10-Mar-2005
Excess of Loss reinsurance. In the civil courts of England and Wales is that (with one obvious exception) expert evidence on the domestic law is inadmissible. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Insurance

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196703

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 approach correctly, and the role of the court is to conduct a Wednesbury review of the decision of the council. That review was also correct. It was not a Gillespie case. The committee already had substantial information before it. A planning authority could not rely upon undertakings and conditions to secure compliance with the requirements for an assessment.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Ord Justice Dyson And Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] Env LR 391, [2003] EWCA Civ 1408, Times 31-Oct-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 17 June 1995 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMarleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
CitedAannemersbedriijf 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 . .
CitedBerkeley v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames CA 29-Jun-2001
There is no obligation to refer every application to the Secretary of State where an objector raised a plausible argument that an environmental impact assessment might be needed. In this case the application did not fall within Schedule I, and nor . .
CitedRegina v Cornwall County Council ex p Hardy Admn 2001
The council granted planning permission although its planning committee had decided that further surveys should be carried out to ensure that bats would not be adversely affected by the proposed development. The question was the adequacy of . .
CitedSmith v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions and others CA 5-Mar-2003
The court distilled four principles in deciding whether an environmental impact assessment was to be required. At the outline consent stage the planning authority must have sufficient details of any impact on the environment and of any mitigation to . .
CitedBellway Urban Renewal Southern v Gillespie CA 27-Mar-2003
The applicant appealed against a decision for development granted in the absence of its own decision. The judge had quashed the decision because of the absence of an environmental impact statement.
Held: When making the screening decision, it . .
CitedWorld Wildlife Fund and Others v Autonome Provinz Bozen and Others ECJ 12-Oct-1999
The court considered a project for converting Bolzano airport in Italy from military to civilian use. The national law did not require the project to be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The court asked whether the national law . .
CitedBown, 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 . .
CitedBurkett, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham Admn 15-May-2003
Outline permission was granted for a large development, reserving certain matters. The applicant challenged the permission saying that the application had not included the information required under the Regulations, and the authority had failed to . .
Appeal fromJones, Regina (on the Application Of) v Mansfield District Council Admn 20-Jan-2003
. .

Cited by:

CitedYounger 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 . .
CitedRichardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
CitedChampion, 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, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186820

SITA C-116/01: ECJ 3 Apr 2003

ECJ (Judgment) Environment – Waste – Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 – Directive 75/442/EEC – Treatment of waste in several stages – Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and use of incineration residues as raw material in cement manufacture- Classification as a recovery operation or as a disposal operation – Concept of the use of waste principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy

Citations:

[2003] 2 CMLR 4, [2004] QB 262, [2003] ECR I-2969, C-116/01, [2003] EUECJ C-116/01, [2004] 2 WLR 259

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180817

Commission v Greece C-103/00: ECJ 30 Jan 2002

ECJ Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Protection of species.
Advocate General Leger explained article 1(I) of the Directive: ‘conservation status is regarded as ‘favourable’ when population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, that the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and that there is, and probably will continue to be a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.
the combined effect of those provisions is apparently that a system of strict protection of an animal species of Community interest means a set of co-ordinated measures, of a preventative nature, which ensure in the long term that the population of the species in question is maintained or restored in the type of natural habitat to which it belongs. This assumes that there is a sufficiently large natural habitat for the species in question.’

Judges:

Advocate General Leger

Citations:

[2002] ECR I-1147, [2002] EUECJ C-103/00

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 92/43/EEC 1(I)

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedMorge, Regina (on The Application of) v Hampshire County Council CA 10-Jun-2010
Over time, an abandoned railway line had become a habitat for local wildlife. The claimant now objected to the grant of planning permission for a light railway.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. For an act to fall within 12(1)(b) of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167572

Furness and Others v Thames Water Services Ltd, Environment Agency: Admn 17 Dec 2001

The Environment Agency had granted a licence for the incineration of waste, and this was challenged by the claimants, on the basis of the respondents having failed to comply with the procedures required by the Act and Regulations. The regulations included transitional procedures. They said the Agency had no standing under the Act to issue a licence.
Held: The transitional provisions were not easy, but had been navigated correctly by the Environment Agency. The Agency had considered the report governing these matters which did not in any event have the force of law. The application failed.

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1058

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 7 7(4), Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 9, Council Directive 96/61/EC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

Environment, Utilities

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167369

Regina v Environmental Agency, ex parte Marchiori and Another: QBD 12 Apr 2001

The Agency had granted licences for the disposal of nuclear waste from military sites by a private company. Such disposals were not governed by the Euratom Treaty, which dealt with civil wastes only. The matter was generated in the course of the Trident nuclear weapons programme, the legality of which under international law, which the Environment Agency had properly considered to be outwith its jurisdiction. The later confirmation by the Food Standards Agency of the licence remedied the defect as regards the need for its approval at the time.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (Nov 1990), Environment Act 1995 16(4A)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

European, Environment, Administrative

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88445

Regina v Environment Agency, ex parte Castle Cement Ltd: QBD 5 Apr 2001

The applicant burned Cemfuel in its Cement Works. The Agency changed the licence conditions to declare that Cemfuel was a hazardous waste. The issue was whether the recovery of Cemfuel from waste created a product no longer waste, and that process was complete by the time it came to be used by them. It was held that Cemfuel was an remained a hazardous waste, until ‘recovered by being used up entirely as fuel. A partial use did not result in it ceasing to be waste.

Citations:

Gazette 05-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Council Directive 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste, Environmental Protection Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88444

Tridon, Federation departementale des chasseurs de l’Isere, and Federation Rhone-Alpes de protection de la nature (Frapna), section Isere: ECJ 23 Oct 2001

ECJ Wild fauna and flora – Endangered species – Application in the Community of the Washington Convention

Citations:

C-510/99, [2001] EUECJ C-510/99, [2001] ECR I-7777, [2002] All ER (EC) 534, ECLI:EU:C:2001:559, [2002] Env LR D 5, [2003] 1 CMLR 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Animals, Environment

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166765

Regina v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Standley and others: ECJ 29 Apr 1999

(Judgment) Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Identification of waters affected by pollution – Designation of vulnerable zones – Criteria – Validity in the light of the polluter pays principle, the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, the principle of proportionality and the right to property

Citations:

C-293/97, [1999] EUECJ C-293/97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Agriculture

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162206

Commission v Ireland: ECJ 21 Sep 1999

ECJ (Judgment) Environment – Directive 85/337/EEC – Assessment of the effects of certain public or private projects – Setting of thresholds

Judges:

J.-P. Puissochet, P

Citations:

C-392/96, [1999] EUECJ C-392/96, [2000] Env LR D15, [2000] QB 636, [2000] 2 WLR 958, [1999] ECR I-5901, [1999] 3 CMLR 727, [1999] 4 PLR 107

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 85/337/EEC

European, Environment

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.162001

Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp and others v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer: ECJ 25 Jun 1998

ECJ Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, and Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community cannot be interpreted as meaning that the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity are applicable to shipments of waste for recovery. That follows from the provisions of the directive and the regulation and from the preparatory texts. Furthermore, the difference in treatment between waste for recovery and waste for disposal reflects the intention of the Community legislature to encourage recovery of waste in the Community as whole, in particular by eliciting the best technologies, which means that waste of that type should be able to move freely between Member States for processing, thus excluding the application of the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity.
Article 130t of the Treaty, which authorises Member States to adopt protective measures which are more stringent than those adopted pursuant to Article 130s, in so far as they are compatible with the Treaty, does not permit them to extend the application of those principles to waste for recovery when it is clear that those principles create a barrier to exports which is not justified either by an imperative measure relating to protection of the environment or by one of the derogations provided for by Article 36 of the Treaty.
Article 90 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 86, precludes rules such as the Netherlands’ Long-term Plan for the Disposal of Dangerous Waste of June 1993, whereby a Member State requires undertakings to deliver their waste for recovery, such as oil filters, to a national undertaking on which it has conferred the exclusive right to incinerate dangerous waste unless the processing of their waste in another Member State is of a higher quality than that performed by that undertaking if, without any objective justification and without being necessary for the performance of a task in the general interest, those rules have the effect of favouring the national undertaking and increasing its dominant position.

Citations:

[1998] ECR I-4075, C-203/96, [1998] EUECJ C-203/96

Links:

Bailii

European, Environment

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161890

Beside and Besselsen v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer: ECJ 25 Jun 1998

ECJ The expression ‘municipal/household waste’ referred to under point AD 160 of the amber list in Annex III to Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Decision 94/721 adapting, pursuant to Article 42(3), Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation No 259/93, includes both waste which for the most part consists of waste mentioned on the green list in Annex II to that regulation, mixed with other categories of waste appearing on that list, and waste mentioned on the green list mixed with a small quantity of materials not referred to on that list. Such mixed waste does not come within the green list unless it has been collected separately or properly sorted.
The information listed in Article 11(1) of the regulation, which must accompany shipments of waste intended for recovery appearing in Annex II, constitutes the minimum evidence which the competent authority may, in the absence of notification, require in order to establish that `green waste’ is intended for recovery.
In the case of shipments of waste which have not been notified to all the competent authorities concerned (illegal traffic), the Member State of destination may not unilaterally return waste to the Member State of dispatch without prior notification to the latter; the Member State of dispatch may not oppose its return where the Member State of destination produces a duly motivated request to that effect.
The reference to the storage of materials in point R 13 of Annex II B to Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, which lists waste recovery operations, covers not only cases in which storage takes place in the undertaking in which the other operations mentioned in that annex must be carried out but also cases in which storage precedes transport to such an undertaking, regardless of whether the latter is established inside or outside the Community.

Citations:

C-192/96, [1998] EUECJ C-192/96

Links:

Bailii

European, Environment

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161884

Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte National Farmers’ Union and others: ECJ 5 May 1998

Land from which nitrates were leeching off into rivers causing pollution, had to be designated as environmentally vulnerable land, if agricultural activities were a substantial even if only partially cause of the pollution. ‘As regards . . . the principle of proportionality, it is settled law that, in order to establish whether a provision of Community law complies with that principle, it must be ascertained whether the means which it employs are suitable for the purpose of achieving the desired objective and whether they do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it.’

Citations:

Times 10-May-1999, Case C-293/97, C-157/96, [1998] EUECJ C-157/96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 91/676/EEC

Cited by:

CitedRegina on the Application of Isle of Anglesey County Council v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 30-Oct-2003
The claimant council sought re-imbursement from the Secretary of the excess housing benefit payments it had made to claimants. The system expected the Council to have made referrals of high rents to rent officers. The respondent had decided that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, European, European

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161859

VAG Sverige AB: ECJ 29 May 1997

(Judgment) 1 Approximation of laws – Motor vehicles – Procedure for Community type-approval – Directive 70/156 – Right of the Member States to refuse to register vehicles with a valid Community type-approval certificate – Conditions – National rules subjecting the registration of motor vehicles to the production of a national certificate declaring that they comply with national exhaust emission rules – Not permissible (Council Directive 70/156, Art. 7(1) and (3))
2 Community law – Interpretation – Acts of the institutions – Declaration recorded in minutes – Whether to be taken into consideration – Not permissible where no reference is made to the declaration in the act itself
3 Directive 70/156 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, as amended by Directive 92/53, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which motor vehicles covered by a valid Community type-approval certificate cannot be registered unless a national certificate is produced attesting to their conformity with national requirements concerning exhaust emissions.
It is clear from Article 7(1) and (3) of the directive that a Member State may refuse to register a vehicle with a valid Community type-approval certificate only if it finds that the vehicle is a serious risk to road safety. Refusal to register under the national rules on the basis of considerations of environmental protection does not satisfy the conditions governing the derogation provided for by that provision.
4 A declaration recorded in minutes is of limited value, since it cannot be used for the purposes of interpreting a provision of Community law where no reference is made to the content of the declaration in the wording of the provision in question and the declaration therefore has no legal significance.

Citations:

C-329/95, [1997] EUECJ C-329/95

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Road Traffic

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161702

Commission v Luxembourg C-312/95: ECJ 17 Oct 1996

ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfil obligations – Council Directives 90/219/EEC and 90/220/EEC – Genetically modified organisms. A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.

Citations:

C-312/95, [1996] EUECJ C-312/95

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Agriculture

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161691

Criminal proceedings against Gallotti and others: ECJ 12 Sep 1996

(Judgment) 1. The need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary for the latter to define the factual and legislative context of the questions submitted or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based.
The information provided in orders for reference serves not only to enable the Court to give helpful answers but also to enable the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations in accordance with Article 20 of the Statute of the Court. It is the Court’ s duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations is safeguarded, in view of the fact that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.
2. Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing criminal penalties to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down by Directive 91/156 amending Directive 75/442 on waste, provided that those penalties are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and are, in any event, effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Although the directive in question does not impose any specific obligation on the Member States as regards systems of controls and penalties, that does not mean that national provisions which impose criminal penalties for infringements of legislation implementing the directive are incompatible with the latter. The Member States are required, within the bounds of the freedom left to them by the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, to choose the most appropriate forms and methods to ensure the effectiveness of directives, and Article 5 of the Treaty requires them, in the circumstances referred to above, to take all measures necessary to guarantee the application and effectiveness of Community law.

Citations:

C-58/95, [1996] EUECJ C-58/95

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161527

Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment): ECJ 14 Jul 1993

ECJ 1. A Member State which is bound to implement a directive is not entitled to draw the inference from the Commission’ s initial failure to react to a communication addressed to it regarding the manner in which the Member State intended to implement the directive that the Commission, which was obliged by neither Article 5 of the Treaty nor the provisions of the directive to express a view within a given period, had approved the criteria notified. It is for the Commission to decide when it intends to formulate objections and there is nothing to prevent it subsequently bringing proceedings against the Member State for failure to fulfil obligations.
2. The definition of ‘bathing water’ within the meaning of the second indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water must, in the light of the directive’ s underlying purpose as expressed in the recitals in the preamble thereto, be understood as encompassing at all events the waters of bathing resorts equipped with certain facilities, such as changing huts, toilets and markers indicating bathing areas, and supervised by lifeguards.
3. Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water, Article 4(1) of which imposes an obligation on Member States to take all the measures necessary to ensure that their bathing waters conform to the physical, chemical and microbiological values laid down by the directive within a period of ten years from its notification, requires Member States to take steps to ensure that the prescribed results are attained within the period laid down; apart from the derogations expressly provided for by the directive they may not rely on particular circumstances to justify a failure to fulfil that obligation.

Citations:

C-56/90, [1993] EUECJ C-56/90, [1993] ECR I-4109

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedClientearth, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 29-Apr-2015
The applicant had challenged the failure by the governement to secure appropriate air quality standards. The question had earlier been referred to the ECJ, and the Court now considered the appropriate orders following the ECJ judgment.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Environment

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160449

Regina v Secretary of State Environment, ex parte Friends of the Earth Ltd and Another: QBD 4 Apr 1994

The Secretary of State may accept undertakings from water companies to provide a wholesome water supply, rather than requiring a court to order them to achieve the same thing.

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-1994, Independent 12-Apr-1994

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991 68(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, European, Utilities

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.87695

Regina v Environment Agency ex parte Dockgrange Limited and Mayer Parry Limited: Admn 22 May 1997

The verb ‘discard’ in the Waste Framework Directive has a special and limited meaning which requires the materials to be subjected to a disposal or recovery operation.
Carnwath J said: ‘The general concept is now reasonably clear. The term discard is used in a broad sense equivalent to ‘get rid of’. The phrase get rid of’ is concerned with materials which have ceased to be required for their original purpose, normally because they are unsuitable, unwanted or surplus to requirements. That broad category is however limited by the context, which shows that the purpose is to control disposal and recovery of such material. Accordingly, materials which are to be reused (rather than finally disposed of) but which do not require any recovery operation before being put to their new use, are not treated as waste.’ and ‘Insofar as the discarded materials do not require any recovery operation, they are not treated as waste at all. Insofar as they do require recovery operations, they remain waste until those recovery operations are complete.’

Judges:

Carnwath J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 495, [1999] ENVLR 489

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 75/442/EEC, Trans-frontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Per incuriamAttorney-General’s Reference (No 5 of 2000) CACD 6-Jun-2001
Waste products could become ‘controlled waste’ and subject to licensing procedures without there being a recovery or disposal operation being involved. A rendering process produced a condensate which the company wished to spread on farm land without . .
LimitedCastle Cement v Environment Agency Admn 22-Mar-2001
The court was asked ‘whether the burning of Cemfuel, as a fuel in the Ribblesdale and Ketton Cement Works operated by the Applicant (Castle), amounts to the burning of ‘hazardous waste’, as the Environment Agency has concluded, or to the burning of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Licensing, European

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137440

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte Bagshaw, Regina v Sane Ex Parte Norton and Bagshaw: QBD 6 May 1994

Mr Bagshaw sought an order modifying the definitive map and statement to show a former mine track as a public right of way.
Held: A claimant seeking to establish a public path had to show evidence in support or that it was reasonable to make the allegation.
Owen J, referring to 53(3)(c)(i) said: ‘It is necessary to give some meaning to all the words used. Accordingly, there must be a difference between showing ‘that a right of way which is not shown in the map and statement subsists’ and showing that a right of way which is not shown in the map and statement ‘is reasonably alleged to subsist’. Accordingly the questions for the council and subsequently for the Secretary of State were: does the evidence produced by the claimant together with all the other evidence available show that either– (a) a right of way subsists? (I shall call this test ‘A’), or (b) it is reasonable to allege that a right of way subsists? (I shall call this test ‘B’). To answer either question must involve some evaluation of the evidence and a judgment upon that evidence. For the first of those possibilities to be answered in the affirmative, it will be necessary to show that on a balance of probabilities the right does exist. For the second possibility to be shown it will be necessary to show that a reasonable person, having considered all the relevant evidence available, could reasonably allege a right of way to subsist.’

Judges:

Owen J

Citations:

Times 06-May-1994, [1994] 68 P and CR 402

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53(3)(c)(I)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTodd, Bradley v The Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Admn 22-Jun-2004
Application was made to quash an order modifying the Council’s definitive map of public rights of way.
Held: Before the Secretary of State could confirm a Council’s modification of a right of way shown on the definitive map, where that . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Wales Ex Parte Emery CA 9-Jul-1997
The applicant had sought to have included in the definitive map, a local footpath, and now challenged refusal to include it.
Held: A public right of way may be created by dedication or it may be deemed after actual use by the public over . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87786

Safety H-Tech Srl v S and T Srl: ECJ 22 Jul 1998

Use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons was properly banned for all purposes including fire fighting ones, and no sufficient reason for any exemption had been shown.

Citations:

Times 22-Jul-1998, C-284/95, [1998] EUECJ C-284/95

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council regulation EC 3093/94 Substance depleting the Ozone Layer

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.88975

Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Bray: QBD 13 Apr 1999

A bylaw, restricting fishing by reference to the size of the ship, was valid. The words must not be construed out of context of the whole Act, and in this case an ‘instrument’ used for fishing did not include the vessel itself.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Apr-1999, Times 13-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 252

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966

Environment, Agriculture

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87363

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Linster and Others: ECJ 19 Sep 2000

Where a road or other development project would have a substantial impact on the environment, a law passed by a member state authorising the construction to proceed but which was in the absence of an impact assessment, was not in compliance with the Directive. It was not possible to bypass the procedure by use of special statutory powers. The Directive did not apply where its purposes were satisfied by a statutory process, but that implied the need for that process to produce a similar investigation.

Citations:

Times 05-Oct-2000, [2000] ECR I-6917, [2000] EUECJ C-287/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedHS2 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, Transport

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80973