header-logo header-logo

03 May 2012
Issue: 7512 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Environment

Mountpace Ltd v Haringey London Borough Council [2012] EWHC 698 (Admin), [2012] All ER (D) 117 (Apr)

On the proper construction of s 34(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the duty of care imposed under that subsection on any person who produced waste was a duty to secure the results set out in s 34(1)(c), which was to be complied with on the occasion of a given transfer of waste; and the question as to what had been the reasonable measures applicable to him “in that capacity” to secure those results, had to be answered and assessed by reference to his capacity on that occasion in the circumstances prevailing on that occasion. It could be no defence in the event of proof of non-compliance with the duty under s 34(1), that in the particular circumstances, even if the duty had been fulfilled, there would still have been a transfer to an unauthorised person.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher boosts structured finance practice with appointment of Will Sharp

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke grows its life sciences team with new partner hires

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal expands corporate team with twonew appointments

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
back-to-top-scroll