Express Ltd. v The Environment Agency

Express Ltd. v The Environment Agency

Express Ltd was liable under section 217(3) because the offence by Pardy’s Dairies was due to their acts or defaults, specifically the failure to conduct a risk assessment and allowing unsafe operations near surface water drains. Cream constituted polluting matter as it had a polluting effect and potential for harm, even without evidence of actual harm.

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 / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Water Pollution, Strict Liability Offences, Statutory Interpretation, Corporate Liability
Environmental Law Criminal Law Water Pollution Strict Liability Offences Statutory Interpretation Corporate Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Express Ltd

Appellant

The Environment Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 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) of the Water Resources Act 1991

Ratio Decidendi

Express Ltd was liable under section 217(3) because the offence by Pardy’s Dairies was due to their acts or defaults, specifically the failure to conduct a risk assessment and allowing unsafe operations near surface water drains. Cream constituted polluting matter as it had a polluting effect and potential for harm, even without evidence of actual harm.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All five questions in the case stated answered in the affirmative
  • Conviction of Express Ltd upheld