Express Ltd. v The Environment Agency [2004] EWHC 1710 (Admin) (15 July 2004)

Express Ltd. v The Environment Agency [2004] EWHC 1710 (Admin) (15 July 2004)

Express Ltd's acts and defaults, including failure to conduct adequate risk assessment and permitting unsafe operations, were sufficient to establish liability under section 217(3); cream was polluting matter as it tainted and had potential for harm, satisfying section 85(1).

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1710 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Express Ltd; Respondent: The Environment Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal From Conviction by Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Water Pollution, Strict Liability, Statutory Interpretation, Corporate Criminal Liability
Environmental Law Criminal Law Water Pollution Strict Liability Statutory Interpretation Corporate Criminal Liability

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Express Ltd

Appellant

The Environment Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal From Conviction by Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commission of the offence against section 85(1) was due to the act or default of the appellant under section 217(3)
  2. 2 Whether cream was 'polluting matter' within the meaning of sections 85(1) and (6)

Ratio Decidendi

Express Ltd's acts and defaults, including failure to conduct adequate risk assessment and permitting unsafe operations, were sufficient to establish liability under section 217(3); cream was polluting matter as it tainted and had potential for harm, satisfying section 85(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All questions posed in the case stated answered in the affirmative
  • Conviction upheld