Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Skipaway Ltd (Appellant) – and – The Environment Agency (Respondent)

Country/Territory
United Kingdom
Type of court
Others
Date
May 5, 2006
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Justice
Seat of court
London
Judge
Newman
Burnton
Reference number
[2006] EWHC 983 (Admin)
Language
English
Subject
Waste & hazardous substances
Keyword
Waste management
Abstract
This was an appeal from the decision of the Magistrates’ Court convicting the Appellant of 6 offences under section 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. All of the offences related to alleged breaches by the Appellant of the terms of its waste management licence relating to its waste transfer plant known as the Recycling Centre in Kent. The Appellant submitted that the justices had erred in finding that the Respondent had proved that the waste that was the subject of the various charges was controlled waste. The Environment Agency had not proved that the waste that was the subject of the charges was not agricultural waste. He contended that the licence regulated its use of the site in relation only to controlled waste, and specifically household, industrial and commercial waste. Agricultural waste and waste from quarries were not controlled waste. The Environment Agency had not excluded the reasonable possibility that the waste that was referred to in the charges was agricultural or quarry waste. The Court held that the mere fact that waste came from farms or quarries did not of itself establish that it was agricultural waste or waste from a quarry within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and did not establish that it was outside the scope of the conditions in the license. It decided that the justices were entitled to find that the waste to which the information related had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be controlled waste.
Full text
skipaway_v_environmental_agency_0506.htm