Circular Facilities (London) Limited v Sevenoaks District Council
Circular Facilities (London) Limited v Sevenoaks District Council
- 2005
[2005] EWHC 865 (Admin), 10 May 2005. Considers the basis upon which it decided that a property development company (C) had the requisite knowledge that land was contaminated for it to be an appropriate person upon which a local authority (S) could serve a remediation order for the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 s78F. Appeal by C against a decision that it was an appropriate person to receive a remediation notice in connection with contaminated land. The court found that C must have considered the soil inspection report identifying the contaminants at the site developed by C in the early 1980s and been aware of the contaminants and was therefore the appropriate person to serve the remediation notice. C contended that it did not know of the presence of the contaminants buried at the relevant time. "Held": appeal allowed. The judge's basis for concluding that C had knowledge of the contents of the soil report was unclear and he should have given clear reasons for his findings. He should have stated the factual evidence proving that a person who had considerable responsibility in connection with the development knew of the report's contents. The case was remitted for retrial. Remediation noticed withdrawn. Two parties settled out of Court . (See ENDS Report (375) April 2006, 17)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990 S78
CIRCULAR FACILITIES (LONDON) LTD V SEVENOAKS DC
CONTAMINATED LAND
[2005] EWHC 865 (Admin), 10 May 2005. Considers the basis upon which it decided that a property development company (C) had the requisite knowledge that land was contaminated for it to be an appropriate person upon which a local authority (S) could serve a remediation order for the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 s78F. Appeal by C against a decision that it was an appropriate person to receive a remediation notice in connection with contaminated land. The court found that C must have considered the soil inspection report identifying the contaminants at the site developed by C in the early 1980s and been aware of the contaminants and was therefore the appropriate person to serve the remediation notice. C contended that it did not know of the presence of the contaminants buried at the relevant time. "Held": appeal allowed. The judge's basis for concluding that C had knowledge of the contents of the soil report was unclear and he should have given clear reasons for his findings. He should have stated the factual evidence proving that a person who had considerable responsibility in connection with the development knew of the report's contents. The case was remitted for retrial. Remediation noticed withdrawn. Two parties settled out of Court . (See ENDS Report (375) April 2006, 17)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990 S78
CIRCULAR FACILITIES (LONDON) LTD V SEVENOAKS DC
CONTAMINATED LAND