Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency

Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency

The Environment Agency materially erred in law by misinterpreting 'regulatory decision' in the 2014 Regulators’ Code as confined to decisions imposing mandatory obligations, thereby unlawfully denying Suez a merits-based appeal against adverse CARs. The correct interpretation is broader and includes adverse CARs. However, the Agency was not required by common law procedural fairness to provide a merits appeal in every case, and the odour assessments and Stage 2A Review were lawful and reasonable.

Parties
Claimant: Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd; Defendant: Environment Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim for judicial review allowed in part; Stage 2A Review decision quashed; other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Procedural Fairness, Environmental Permitting, Regulatory Decisions, Appeals and Complaints Procedures
Administrative Law Environmental Law Regulatory Law Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Procedural Fairness Environmental Permitting Regulatory Decisions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd

Claimant

Environment Agency

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environment Agency complied with its duty under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the 2014 Regulators’ Code in providing a right of appeal against adverse Compliance Assessment Reports (CARs)
  2. 2 Whether common law procedural fairness required a right of appeal against CARs
  3. 3 Whether the odour assessments in CAR1 and CAR2 were lawful and complied with the Tameside duty of sufficient inquiry and relevant guidance

Ratio Decidendi

The Environment Agency materially erred in law by misinterpreting 'regulatory decision' in the 2014 Regulators’ Code as confined to decisions imposing mandatory obligations, thereby unlawfully denying Suez a merits-based appeal against adverse CARs. The correct interpretation is broader and includes adverse CARs. However, the Agency was not required by common law procedural fairness to provide a merits appeal in every case, and the odour assessments and Stage 2A Review were lawful and reasonable.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review allowed in part; Stage 2A Review decision quashed; other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is allowed on the first agreed issue regarding the Agency’s failure to comply with its duty under the 2006 Act and the 2014 Code in considering a right of appeal against an adverse CAR score.
  • The Stage 2A Review decision dated 30 June 2021 is quashed and the challenge to CAR1 and CAR2 is remitted to the Agency for reconsideration.