The defendant appealed convictions for breaches of its waste management licence, in that waste had been stored outside the edges of the storage bays. The defendant said that the material had not yet been stored, and that it had been deposited by neighbouring farmers and was to be stored properly during the working day.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘There is a surprisingly common misconception that once an appeal by way of case stated is before the court, the parties may refer to evidence, or at least undisputed evidence, that was before the lower court in addition to that set out in the case.
On an appeal by way of case stated, the Court is confined to the facts set out in the case. It is therefore important that the parties ensure that the case includes all those matters that should be before the Court when deciding the issues raised on the appeal. If a party to an appeal considers that the case produced by the lower court omits relevant matters, he should seek to have the case supplemented either by agreement with the other party and the lower court or by application to this Court under section 28(A)(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 for an order for the amendment of the case stated. ‘ The waste was not uncontrolled waste only because its source might be local farms: ‘waste from a farm house is household waste rather than agricultural waste. It makes no sense, for example, for a discarded television from a farm house to be agricultural waste when the same waste from a dwelling house nearby is household waste. Nor does it make sense for a house across the road from a farm to be the source of household waste, yet for the same kind of waste from a house at the edge of a farm to be agricultural waste.’
Judges:
Newman J, Stanley Burnton J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 983 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Environmental Protection Act 1990 3396), Control of Pollution Act 1974 30, Supreme Court Act 1981 28A(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Environment Agency v M E Foley Contractors ltd and Another QBD 18-Jan-2002
The defendant company did not accept that it had accepted special waste at its disposal plant. Instead they claimed to have the appropriate licence or exemption.
Held: The burden of establishing acceptance of special waste was not on the . .
Cited – Regina v Rothschild and RH Tomlinson Ltd CACD 2004
It would be a contravention of a waste management licence requiring controlled waste not to be stored at a height greater that specified, to have a mound greater that that height containing an admixture of controlled and uncontrolled waste. . .
Cited – Environment Agency v Armstrong Environmental Services Ltd Admn 22-Mar-2005
. .
Cited – Kay v Burrows HL 1931
The House considered whether premises (the greater part of which was used for the storage of rags awaiting processing, sorting or subsequent despatch) fell within the proviso to s.3(1) which excluded premises ‘primarily occupied and used [for the] . .
Cited – Kay v Burrows HL 1931
The House considered whether premises (the greater part of which was used for the storage of rags awaiting processing, sorting or subsequent despatch) fell within the proviso to s.3(1) which excluded premises ‘primarily occupied and used [for the] . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited by:
Cited – M v Director Of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Feb-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Magistrates, Criminal Practice
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.241502
