header-logo header-logo

05 July 2007
Issue: 7280 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Utility companies not liable for contaminated land

Utility companies and their shareholders are not liable for certain environmental liabilities—including site clean-up costs—of their predecessor entities, the House of Lords has ruled.

In R (on the application of National Grid Gas plc (formerly Transco plc)) v Environment Agency, the law lords allowed an appeal by National Grid Gas (NGG)—formerly Transco—against a High Court decision that it should contribute towards the cost of cleaning up sites contaminated by former gas companies.

The Environment Agency’s claim that NGG was an “appropriate person” for the purposes of Pt 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990), and should therefore pay towards the remediation of a former public gasworks site, was rejected by the court.

CMS Cameron McKenna partner Paul Sheridan says the House of Lords has effectively ruled that when passing Pt 2A in 1995, the then Parliament did not intend that this retrospective liability would overreach the intent of the Parliament at the time of the British Gas and other privatisations.
“This will no doubt give rise to considerable academic and constitutional debate,” he adds.

In the ruling Lord Scott said: “I find it extraordinary and unacceptable that a public authority, a part of government, should seek to impose a liability on a private company, and thereby to reduce the value of the investment held by its shareholders, that falsifies the basis on which the original investors, the subscribers, were invited by government to subscribe for shares.”

Issue: 7280 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll