Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Ethos Recycling Ltd v Barking & Dagenham Magistrates Court & Anor.

Pays/Territoire
Royaume-Uni
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Nov 13, 2009
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
High Court
Siège de la cour
London
Juge
Scott Baker
Cranston.
Numéro de référence
[2009] EWHC 2885 (Admin)
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Questions juridiques, Environnement gén.
Mot clé
Planification territoriale
Résumé
The claimant was a waste recycling company. Its neighbours and other residents complained to the local council about the nuisance caused by dust it generated. The council issued an abatement notice under Part III Environmental Protection Act 1990. The claimant appealed on the ground that the council had not obtained the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing the notice (section 79(10) of the 1990 Act).The District Judge rejected that point; he drew a distinction between the service of the notice and a decision to enforce it by bringing summary proceedings in a magistrates’ court. In his view, only the latter fell within the natural meaning of the words ‘institute summary proceedings’. As a result, a local authority was not prevented from taking the preparatory steps necessary to allow summary proceedings (for example by serving a notice) without first obtaining the consent of the secretary of state. The claimant sought a judicial review. The Divisional Court rejected the claim. The Act only required the council to obtain consent before instituting summary 'proceedings'. The service of the notice was not caught by that requirement, but a prosecution for any breach of it would be. The court was supported in its view by the legislative history of the Act and by its analysis of the overall scheme established by the legislation. It was considered that the council was a more natural recipient for nuisance complaints than the EA and that, having received such complaints and satisfied itself that a nuisance existed, a council was obliged to issue an abatement notice. On a practical basis, it would take time to consult the secretary of state before the issue of a notice and in nuisance cases time was frequently of the essence. It therefore seemed to the court ‘entirely logical, practical and in keeping with the published policy ... that the consent of the Secretary of State should be required prior to the commencement of proceedings for failure to comply with the abatement notice rather than at an earlier stage’.
Texte intégral
COU-156637.pdf