Water Pollution in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather
    • House of Lords
    • 09 Diciembre 1993

    I understand the position to have been that any spillage would have been expected to evaporate rapidly in the air, and would not have been expected to seep through the floor of the building into the soil below. The only harm that could have been foreseen from a spillage was that somebody might have been overcome by fumes from a spillage of a significant quantity.

    Of course, although liability for nuisance has generally been regarded as strict, at least in the case of a defendant who has been responsible for the creation of a nuisance, even so that liability has been kept under control by the principle of reasonable user — the principle of give and take as between neighbouring occupiers of land, under which "

  • R an Taisce (The National Trust for Ireland) v The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change NNB Generation Company Ltd, The Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government, Ireland and Another (Interested Parties)
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 20 Diciembre 2013

    In my judgment there is no reason that precludes the Secretary of State from being able to have regard to, and rely upon, the existence of a stringently operated regulatory regime for future control. Because of its existence, he was satisfied, on a reasonable basis, that he had sufficient information to enable him to come to a final decision on the development consent application.

  • Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and another
    • Chancery Division
    • 26 Noviembre 2004

    iii) Although the words "suitable in that behalf" are capable of being read objectively, the context in which they appear (that of a power exercisable by the Minister) gives some margin of judgement to the Minister in the selection of the site. This margin of judgement may be important if, as is theoretically possible, it is necessary to balance conflicting desiderata.

  • Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
    • House of Lords
    • 19 Noviembre 2003

    It must be shown that the defendant has done something which he recognised, or judged by the standards appropriate at the relevant place and time, he ought reasonably to have recognised, as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there should be an escape, however unlikely an escape may have been thought to be.

  • Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority
    • House of Lords
    • 05 Febrero 1998

    These examples show that one cannot give a common sense answer to a question of causation for the purpose of attributing responsibility under some rule without knowing the purpose and scope of the rule. Does the rule impose a duty which requires one to guard against, or makes one responsible for, the deliberate acts of third persons? If so, it will be correct to say, when loss is caused by the act of such a third person, that it was caused by the breach of duty.

  • Blewett v Derbyshire Waste Ltd
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 07 Noviembre 2003

    They recognise that an environmental statement may well be deficient, and make provision through the publicity and consultation processes for any deficiencies to be identified so that the resulting "environmental information" provides the local planning authority with as full a picture as possible.

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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT