Milton Keynes District Council v Fuller & Anor País/Territorio Reino Unido Tipo de la corte Otros Fecha Jun 23, 2011 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal High Court of Justice Sede de la corte London Juez Aikens. Número de referencia [2011] EWHC 1967 (Admin) Idioma Inglés Materia Desechos y sustancias peligrosas Palabra clave Residuos sólidos Desperdicio de alimentos Desechos orgánicos Eliminación de desechos Infracciones/sanciones Cumplimiento/aplicación Desechos urbanos Gestión de desechos Residuos industriales Transporte/depósito Resumen In this case, Mr Fuller found that waste had been fly-tipped by an unknown person on his farm track and adjoining field. The waste obstructed access to his other fields. Mr Fuller called the Council to remove the waste. In the meantime, he and his farm worker, Mr McVeigh, moved the waste that was immediately blocking access to his farm track onto a nearby highway verge. The Council considered that their movement of the waste amounted to an illegal deposit of waste and subsequently prosecuted them both for fly-tipping. The Magistrates Court found that the movement of the waste to clear access to their own property did not amount to a deposit because the waste had already been illegally deposited on the verge by somebody else. Furthermore, the Magistrates held that Mr Fuller would not have telephoned the Council had he intended to deposit the waste illegally. The Council appealed and the High Court was asked to determine whether Mr Fullers actions of moving fly-tipped waste to gain access to his own property constituted a “deposit”. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that there was no question of law involved in the interpretation of the ordinary and uncomplicated English word “deposit”. In the absence of any statutory definition, “deposit” was to be given its broad ordinary meaning. Further, the court found that the Magistrates were obviously acquainted with the ordinary use of the word “deposit” and their conclusion, that the acts of Mr Fuller and Mr McVeigh did not amount to a deposit, was a perfectly reasonable one. The High Court did however state that there might well be cases where a second movement of controlled waste did amount to a “deposit” and that each case had to be decided on its particular facts. The court said that it would be a deposit if, for example, a householder deliberately and illegally deposited waste on his neighbour's driveway. But it would not be a deposit if the neighbour moved the same waste to one side so that he could get his car out of the drive. Texto completo COU-159744.pdf