header-logo header-logo

05 July 2007
Issue: 7280 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Utility companies not liable for contaminated land

Utility companies and their shareholders are not liable for certain environmental liabilities—including site clean-up costs—of their predecessor entities, the House of Lords has ruled.

In R (on the application of National Grid Gas plc (formerly Transco plc)) v Environment Agency, the law lords allowed an appeal by National Grid Gas (NGG)—formerly Transco—against a High Court decision that it should contribute towards the cost of cleaning up sites contaminated by former gas companies.

The Environment Agency’s claim that NGG was an “appropriate person” for the purposes of Pt 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990), and should therefore pay towards the remediation of a former public gasworks site, was rejected by the court.

CMS Cameron McKenna partner Paul Sheridan says the House of Lords has effectively ruled that when passing Pt 2A in 1995, the then Parliament did not intend that this retrospective liability would overreach the intent of the Parliament at the time of the British Gas and other privatisations.
“This will no doubt give rise to considerable academic and constitutional debate,” he adds.

In the ruling Lord Scott said: “I find it extraordinary and unacceptable that a public authority, a part of government, should seek to impose a liability on a private company, and thereby to reduce the value of the investment held by its shareholders, that falsifies the basis on which the original investors, the subscribers, were invited by government to subscribe for shares.”

Issue: 7280 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll