Furness & Ors v Thames Water Services Ltd [2001] EWHC Admin 1058 (17th December, 2001)

Furness & Ors v Thames Water Services Ltd [2001] EWHC Admin 1058 (17th December, 2001)

The Environment Agency acted lawfully in granting the IPC authorisation under the transitional provisions, as the application was duly made before the new regime commenced and the authorisation did not permit operation without a further PPC permit. The Agency did not fail to consider material matters, and the conditions imposed were not irrational or uncertain.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Admin 1058
Parties
Claimant: Dominic John Furness; Claimant: Alyson Jane Furness; Claimant: Guildford Borough Council; Defendant: Environment Agency; Interested Party: Thames Water Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pollution Control, Transitional Provisions, Judicial Review, Environmental Permits, Directive Implementation
Environmental Law Administrative Law European Union Law Pollution Control Transitional Provisions Judicial Review Environmental Permits Directive Implementation

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominic John Furness

Claimant

Alyson Jane Furness

Claimant

Guildford Borough Council

Claimant

Environment Agency

Defendant

Thames Water Services Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environment Agency had jurisdiction to grant an IPC authorisation after the commencement of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000
  2. 2 Whether the Agency failed to have regard to material considerations
  3. 3 Whether conditions in the authorisation were irrational or uncertain

Ratio Decidendi

The Environment Agency acted lawfully in granting the IPC authorisation under the transitional provisions, as the application was duly made before the new regime commenced and the authorisation did not permit operation without a further PPC permit. The Agency did not fail to consider material matters, and the conditions imposed were not irrational or uncertain.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed