Image from Google Jackets

The Queen on the application of Thames Water Utilities V The South East London Division, Bromley Magistrates Court interested party: Environment Agency [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: C-252/05, 10 May 2007. Considers whether sewage escaping from networks maintained by a sewerage company constituted controlled waste for the purposes of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 section 33. The company (T) was accused of dumping controlled waste through accidental leakage into controlled waters. The magistrates' court referred the matter of whether water leaking from the sewerage system constituted this. "Held": The fact that the waste water was spilled accidentally did not alter the view that the sewerage company was considered to have dumped the waste. Directive 75/442 could not apply in this case as it did not cover waste waters. Directive 91/271 did no more than lay down a duty to prevent the risk of leakage of waste water and could not in any case be used as it did not provide special legislation for waste water, which would be needed to prevail over 75/442. Judgment accordingly.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 138236-1001

C-252/05, 10 May 2007. Considers whether sewage escaping from networks maintained by a sewerage company constituted controlled waste for the purposes of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 section 33. The company (T) was accused of dumping controlled waste through accidental leakage into controlled waters. The magistrates' court referred the matter of whether water leaking from the sewerage system constituted this. "Held": The fact that the waste water was spilled accidentally did not alter the view that the sewerage company was considered to have dumped the waste. Directive 75/442 could not apply in this case as it did not cover waste waters. Directive 91/271 did no more than lay down a duty to prevent the risk of leakage of waste water and could not in any case be used as it did not provide special legislation for waste water, which would be needed to prevail over 75/442. Judgment accordingly.