Articles Case

CONTENTS : ELM 15[2003]6 341 Volume 15 Issue 6 2003 ISSN 1067 6058 Editorial NIMBY-ism and the spectre of maritime pollution 343 DAVID POCKLINGTON Articles PROFESSOR D E FISHER The principles of a contemporary environmental legal system 347 Queensland University of Technology CLAIRE HOWELL The environmental dimension to company law modernisation 354 DR BEN PONTIN University of the West of England, Bristol Case commentary Rylands v Fletcher restated – the House of Lords’ decision in 367 JASON LOWTHER Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council University of Wolverhampton Case Law EC LAW Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux and others v Premier Ministre, Ministre de 370 l’Amenagement – preliminary ruling on hunting seasons Criminal Proceedings concerning Nilsson – interpretation of trade in endangered 371 species regulations CIVIL LIABILITY Loftus-Brigham and another v Ealing London Borough Council – tree roots and 372 causation issues Daiichi UK Ltd v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty – corporations and the tort of 373 harassment PLANNING LAW R (Jones) v Mansfield District Council – planning and EIA 374 Evans v First Secretary of State – screening directions in EIA 375 WILDLIFE Hughes v DPP – possession of wild birds 377 Case round-up Packaging offences – waste management – water pollution – PPC 378 Strategic Issues Biofuels EFRA, Seventeenth Report, Session 2002–2003 (HC 929) 383 World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 – From Rhetoric to Reality EAC, Twelve Report, Session 2002–2003 (HC 98) Government’s Response to EAC Tenth Report, Learning the Sustainablity Lesson EAC, Sixth Special Report, Session 2002–2003 (HC 1221) Greening Government 2003, EAC, Thirteenth Report, Session 2002–2003 (HC 961) European Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources 392 Strategic Issues Environment Policy Review: Consolidating the environmental pillar of sustainable development Draft Directive on CHP Measures to safeguard security of electricity supply Energy end-use efficiency and energy services Industry Soundings Anti-social behaviour – noise nuisance – hazardous waste 398 Book Reviews Papers from the 2001 and 2002 UKELA Conferencess400 Environmental Human Rights: Power, Ethics and Law – Hancock Legal Update Environmental law at a glance 401 Volume 15 Issue 6 2003 ISSN 1067 6058 Environmental Law & Management EDITORIAL BOARD ADVISORY BOARD www.lawtext.com ISSN 1067 6058 CONSULTANT EDITORS Dr Paula Case Malcolm Forster Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Volume 15 [2003] Malcolm Forster 6 issues plus index Head of the Public International University of Liverpool £380 US$593 €600 Law Group, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Andrew Wiseman Partner and Head of Environmental Law CONTRIBUTIONS Professor David Hughes Group, The editors and publisher welcome Professor of Housing and Planning Law, Trowers & Hamlins submissions for publication. Articles, letters and other material should be submitted to: Environmental Law Institute, De Montfort University, Leicester Professor Malcolm Grant The Publishing Editor Professor at the Department of Environmental Law and Management MANAGING EDITOR Land Economy, Lawtext Publishing Limited Office G18 – Spinners Court Dr Ben Pontin University of Cambridge 55 West End Unit for Environmental Law, Witney University of the West of England Professor Neil Hawke Oxon Environmental Law Institute, OX28 1NH EDITORS De Montfort University, Leicester E-mail: [email protected] CASE REPORTS Tel: +44 (0) 1993 706183 Jason Lowther Professor William Howarth Fax: +44 (0) 1993 709410 Principal Lecturer, Professor of Environmental Law, School of Legal Studies, University of Kent at Canterbury This journal is a refereed journal and may be University of Wolverhampton cited as: ELM 15 [2003]0 00 Tim Jewell CASE ROUND-UP Barrister, Visiting Senior Fellow, Dr Carolyn Abbot Faculty of Law University of Manchester University of Southampton Environmental Law and Management is published by Lawtext Publishing Limited SCOTTISH EDITOR Owen Lomas Phil Hunter Head of Environmental Law Group, © 2003 Lawtext Publishing Limited All rights reserved. Brodies, Allen & Overy Edinburgh Any UK statutory material in this publication Michael Morris is acknowledged as EUROPEAN EDITOR Nabarro Nathanson Crown Copyright. Anna Syngellakis No part of this publication may be Jean Monnet Principal Lecturer in Professor Colin Reid reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by European Studies, Department of Law, any means, or stored in any retrieval system SLAS, University of Portsmouth University of Dundee of any nature without the written permission of the publishers. INDUSTRY SOUNDINGS Donald Reid Permitted fair dealing under the David Pocklington Environmental Law Consultant, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or British Cement Association Morton Fraser, Solicitors, in accordance with the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in Edinburgh respect of photocopying and/ or LEGAL UPDATE reprographic reproduction is excepted. Jenny Bough Andrew Waite Imperial College at Wye, Environment Group Co-ordinator, Any application for other use of copyright material including permission to reproduce University of London Berwin Leighton Paisner; extracts in other published works must be Vice-President, made to the publishers, and in the event of European Environmental such permission being granted full Law Association acknowledgement of author, publishers and source must be given. Professor Dermot Walsh PUBLISHER Department of Law, Nicholas Gingell University of Limerick, PUBLISHING EDITOR Ireland Rachel Caldin Chris Willmore Typeset by: School of Law, Connell Publishing Services, Oxon OX44 7NW University of Bristol Printed and Bound in the United Kingdom by Information Press, Eynsham EDITORIAL : ELM 15[2003]6 343 NIMBY-ism and the spectre of maritime pollution ‘Legend has it that when a monkey was washed ashore at Hartlepool during the Napoleonic wars, local people hanged it as a French spy. Fear and irrational loathing can make monkey-hangers of us all.’1 Ship-breaking does not normally attract media attention on a national scale, but during October and November 2003, the progress of four former US vessels was subject to daily updates as they sailed ever closer to the Casquettes2 en route to the ship-breakers yard of Able UK in the North East. These events were accompanied by frantic official activity (Defra and Environment Agency officials scurrying between Whitehall, the Cabinet Office and Hartlepool; the issue debated in the House of Commons;3 and the holding of an urgent evidence session of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Select Committee4), and two High Court hearings. The fate of these ships now moored on the River Tees, and that of the remaining nine vessels5 still tied up in the James River, Virginia, is far from settled, but the events leading to the present situation have highlighted wider problems associated with the treatment of end-of-life vessels, the integration of the regulatory agencies responsible for the different tranches of legislation controlling this activity, and the provision of accessible, accurate and unbiased information. Few of the principal actors in the current saga have emerged with their credibility intact – government and the local populations in both the United Kingdom and the United States have resisted having these ‘ghost ships’ in their back yard; groups campaigning against their dismantling have been accused of focusing on public anxiety rather than on a rational analysis of the risks involved; and commercial interests have made few concessions to the genuine public concerns involved. Even the EU Environment Commissioner became embroiled in these essentially local issues, although others, including Greenpeace, managed to achieve the moral high ground by focusing on the broader concerns of the treatment of end-of-life vessels – an area in which the ongoing performance of the United Kingdom does not bear close scrutiny (see below). Information, misinformation and muddle For contentious environmental activities such as ship-breaking, unbiased information is virtually impossible to obtain.6 Those directly involved will certainly have access to such information, but this will generally be restricted to their own activities, and may not be reflected in their public statements. It is therefore unlikely that any one organisation will have the full picture, and a certain degree 1 The Times, 13 November 2003. of interpretation is often necessary to determine the level of reliance which may 2 The Casquettes are the rocks that mark be placed on its assertions. the start of the English Channel’s However, in this case, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select shipping traffic system, and any ship Committee7 took evidence from the UK parties involved, and the report of its proceeding beyond this point must state its ultimate destination. proceedings gives a comprehensive overview of the situation as it stood in mid- 3 Hansard, 3 November 2003, col. 535, November 2003. Being subject to scrutiny by the Committee, information ‘Decommissioning (American Ships)’ (3 gathered at the oral session is more detailed and less unambiguous than the November 2003). 4 Hansard, ‘Ghost Ships: Urgent Evidence written evidence. Nevertheless, all evidence was subject to the parliamentary Session’, Environment, Food and Rural requirements for veracity, and as such few of the more extreme claims appearing Affairs Committee (19 November in the media were repeated. 2003). The evidence of Peter

Load more