Waste in UK Law

See also
Leading Cases
  • Environment Agency v Inglenorth Ltd
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 17 Mar 2009

    In my judgment, those findings of fact entirely support the decision that the Justices came to that upon its deposit at the Cheadle Garden Centre this material was not waste. It was no more waste when it was delivered to the Cheadle site upon those findings of fact then would be hardcore delivered to my drive for me to use to mend the drive or to use as a subbase for my garage floor for concrete to be put on top of it.

  • Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Parkwood Landfill Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 Nov 2002

    A government White Paper of December 1995 entitled "Making Waste Work" (CM3040) preceded the imposition of landfill tax. It examined the strategies to be adopted to reduce the environmental impact of waste disposal. So far as landfill was concerned, three main objectives were set out. First, to reduce the amount of waste; second to reduce the amount of material going to landfill and third to place the cost of landfill on the person disposing of the waste.

    That cannot have been the intention of Parliament when they introduced the landfill tax. The purpose of the legislation was to tax waste material deposited at landfill sites and not to tax deposits at landfill sites of useful material produced from waste material.

  • R v Daventry District Council ex parte Thornby Farms; R v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Murray
    • Court of Appeal
    • 22 Ene 2002

    However, provided the objective is kept in mind, decisions in which the decisive consideration has not been the contribution they make to the achievement of the objective may still be lawful. I do not in any event favour an attempt to create a hierarchy of material considerations whereby the law would require decision makers to give different weight to different considerations.

  • R v W and Others
    • Court of Appeal
    • 11 May 2010

    We conclude, like the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, that excavated soil which has to be discarded by the then “holder” is capable of being waste within the Act and, in any individual case, ordinarily will be. Actual re-use may do so ( Inglenorth), but only if consistent with the aims and objectives of the Act and of the Directive: (c.f. O'Hare), the principal ones of which are the avoidance of harm to persons or to the environment, as set out in the recitals to the Directive.

    The hauliers were also clearly “holders” of materials which it was open to the jury to find to have been waste from the moment of excavation at the neighbouring farm and requiring to be discarded by the land owners as “holders”. The additional question was whether what the jury could find to be “waste” from the moment of excavation to the moment immediately prior to deposit on the respondents' land ceased to be so because of the intended and actual use of it by the new holders.

  • R (Oss Group Ltd) v Environment Agency; Solvent Resource Management Ltd v Environment Agency
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 Jun 2007

    Understandably, the court has held that a material does not cease to be waste merely because it has come into the hands of someone who intends to put it to a new use. But that should not be because it still meets the Article 1(a) definition in his hands; but rather because, in accordance with the aims of the Directive, material which was originally waste needs to continue to be so treated until acceptable recovery or disposal has been achieved.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results