Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Environment Agency v Thorn International UK Ltd.

País/Territorio
Reino Unido
Tipo de la corte
Otros
Fecha
Jul 2, 2008
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
High Court of Justice
Sede de la corte
London
Juez
Moses
Blake.
Número de referencia
[2008] EWHC 2595 (Admin)
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Desechos y sustancias peligrosas
Palabra clave
Gestión de desechos Negocios/industria/corporaciones Reciclado/reutilización Transporte/depósito
Resumen
Thorn bought used household electrical goods such as refrigerators and computers for re-sale. These items had been taken by a company called Wincanton from retailers who had supplied a replacement product to consumers and had contracted to take the used appliance away. Thorn would attend Wincanton’s warehouse and inspect the used appliances which were offered for sale. If it was satisfied that an appliance was still functioning or capable of repair, it would purchase the item. Thorn then transported these items and stored certain items outside for a short period – at most one week - prior to taking them inside for repair and refurbishment. Once repaired and refurbished, the items were purchased by second-hand retailers for sale to the public or sold in Thorn’s own retail stores. The Environment Agency considered that the electrical items stored outside were waste and in particular “controlled waste” for the purposes of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 s.75 and that the storage of the items without a waste management licence was contrary to s.33 of the EPA 1990 and accordingly prosecuted. The Magistrates found that the items were not “waste”. EA appealed arguing that an item was discarded by the consumer, and became waste, at the moment the consumer made a contract with the retailer to exchange the old appliance for a new one and that it did not cease to be waste by virtue of the process of selection by Thorn. It argued that it only ceased to be waste once it had been repaired. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal concluding that at the time that the items were stored by Thorn they were not waste. Thorn regarded them as capable of reuse with some repair and refurbishment. The mere fact that that which in one form is undoubtedly waste remains waste until its character is changed by a process of recycling does not establish a rule of law that any item which requires repair or refurbishment is waste until that process is concluded. A used electrical product, such as a refrigerator or a computer monitor, which had been taken back from its original owner on purchase of a replacement model, and then bought by a company for repair or refurbishment prior to re-sale, was not, while awaiting such repairs, ‘waste’ within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Council Directive 75/442/EEC.
Texto completo
COU-156434.pdf