UK: BLG Pollution and Environmental Risk Digest

Last Updated: 16 December 2002

UK Developments


  • The House of Lords has given the reasons for its decision in Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services & Ors; Matthews v. Associated Portland Cement and Fox v. Spousal & Ors on 20 June (see the Summer 2002 Digest). The case involved workers who had contracted mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos. Each worker had been exposed to asbestos during a series of different employments over 40 years.
    As a general rule, a claimant must prove that the defendant’s action caused the damage concerned. Mesothelioma can be triggered by a single exposure to one or more asbestos fibres. In the present cases, although a number of the employers had failed to provide adequate protection against exposure to asbestos, the claimants could not prove when they had been exposed to the fibres that caused their mesothelioma.
    The House of Lords decided that any injustice to the employers who had not caused the claimants’ exposure to the fatal fibres was outweighed by the injustice to the claimants by application of the general rules. Where employers were under a duty to prevent their employees from becoming exposed to the risk of disease from asbestos, it was inconsistent with the policy of the law imposing the duty, and morally wrong, to impose causation requirements which excluded liability.
    In deciding in favour of the claimants, the Law Lords stated that their approach does not apply to all cases of exposure to substances where there are difficulties in proving cause and effect. Future cases seeking to develop and build on the judgment will, therefore, have to be decided as and when they arise.
  • In R. v. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham ex parte Burkett, the House of Lords determined that the time limit for commencing judicial review proceedings to challenge a grant of planning permission runs from the date on which planning permission was granted rather than from the date of any earlier resolution or decision in the planning process.
  • In RJ Tilbury and Sons (Devon) Ltd v. International Oil Pollution Fund 1971 & Ors. (Admlty), the High Court, on 29 May, held that indirect economic losses arising from marine oil pollution are not recoverable under the International Oil Pollution Fund 1971 ("IOPF 1971").
    The case arose from oil pollution caused by the grounding of the Sea Empress off Milford Haven in 1996 (see the Spring 1996 Digest). When fishing was banned in the polluted area, fishermen were unable to supply whelks to the claimant for processing, resulting in the claimant losing business.
    Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the owner of the vessel that causes "damage" is strictly liable subject to a cap. Any claims for "damage" in excess of the cap are paid by the IOPF 1971.
    The court held that the term "damage" includes physical and economic loss. It had no difficulty accepting that the whelk fishermen who had suffered immediate interference with their work from the spill could recover economic loss under the scheme in principle. However, the court decided that the secondary economic loss suffered by the claimant (as a result of the failure of the claimant’s suppliers to deliver, rather than as a direct result of interference by the oil) was not sufficiently proximate to fall within the scheme, even if foreseeable.
  • On 25 July, the Southampton Magistrates Court fined a director of J&W Aggregates (in liquidation) £4,000 with £1,000 costs in relation to two waste-related offences committed by the company. The company had conducted waste management activities on one unlicensed site and had dumped waste at another unlicensed site in breach of section 33(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ("EPA 1990"). The offences had been committed with the director’s consent, connivance or neglect, in breach of section 157(1) of the EPA 1990.


  • The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1689) came into force in the UK on 24 July. The regulations overhaul UK law relating to the classification and labelling of dangerous substances and preparations and require the classification and labelling of dangerous preparations for certain environmental risks. Existing hazard classification for some 500 substances has also been revised and there are new rules on safety data sheets.
    Due to chemical suppliers having had very little notice of the regulations coming into force, the Health and Safety Commission has indicated that it will not take action against firms whose labels and safety data sheets do not comply with the new rules for an unspecified transitional period.
  • The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1559), which came into force on 15 June, required operators of landfills to submit site conditioning plans by 16 July (see the Summer 2002 Digest). The plans explain how operators will upgrade their sites to meet requirements of the EC Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC).
    Operators of 896 landfills submitted plans by the deadline; operators of 149 sites failed to do so. Closure notices will be served by the Environment Agency on the latter. It is now an offence for such sites to continue to accept waste.
  • Draft regulations aimed at tightening the regulation of asbestos have been laid before Parliament. The regulations, which have not yet been published, will require employers and some landlords to identify and manage any asbestos-containing material in their premises and to make a record of it so that anyone who may disturb the asbestos, such as contractors, is made aware of it.
    At the consultation stage, it was proposed that employers and owners should presume that materials contain asbestos unless there is strong evidence to suppose they do not. If the proposals are followed, the regulations will require a risk assessment to be carried out on any asbestos that has been identified and a plan of action formulated to deal with any identified risks.
    The regulations will take effect as an amendment to the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/2115). The new requirements are likely to be effective from late 2003/early 2004.
  • Legislation to implement the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) has been introduced into the Scottish Parliament. The rest of the UK must also introduce legislation to transpose the Directive into law by the end of 2003 (see the Autumn 2000 Digest).
    The Water Services (Scotland) Bill contains extensive powers enabling ministers to make regulations on the water environment. The regulation-making powers cover the "characterisation" of river basin districts by 2004, the drawing up of plans (including any environmental objectives) for those river basins, and any subsequent river basin remedial and restoration measures.
  • The Offshore Installations (Emergency Pollution Control) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1861) came into force on 18 July. The regulations authorise the UK government (in the form of a Secretary of State’s Representative, or "Sosrep") to take control of a marine pollution event when an accident which will or may cause significant pollution in UK waters has occurred and the need for action is urgent.
    The Sosrep will be authorised to issue directions to offshore operators, take control of installations and, in extreme circumstances, order their destruction. Non-compliance with the Sosrep’s instructions is an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of up to £50,000 or on indictment by an unlimited fine. The regulations provide that persons suffering damage or incurring expense as a result of an unreasonable exercise of the Sosrep’s powers are entitled to compensation from the UK government.


  • The Environment Agency has published regulated companies’ scores under its operator and pollution risk appraisal ("OPRA") scheme for the first time. Individual scores for 1600 integrated pollution control ("IPC") industrial processes, conducted by approximately 1,000 companies, were released in July. Scores for sites operating under waste management licences will be released soon.
    The OPRA scheme involves a snapshot assessment by the Environment Agency of the environmental risks posed by an industrial site and the systems which an operator has in place to manage them. There are two elements - the Pollution. Hazard Appraisal (which reflects the inherent hazard of the industrial process) and the Operator Performance Appraisal (which reflects the operator’s ability to manage the process).
  • The Environment Agency has released its Annual Spotlight on Business Environmental Performance for 2001. The Agency announced that regulated gaseous emissions had generally decreased, continuing the current trend. Emissions did not, however, decrease across the board and there was little change in emissions of greenhouse gases, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. Water quality had improved as a result of significant industry investment.
    There were 118 Category 1 (major) water pollution incidents in 2001 compared to 77 in 2000, with the water industry and agriculture causing most incidents. The Agency brought 1,517 successful prosecutions in 2001 (up from 1,408 in 2000), although the average fine decreased from £8,532 to £6,410. The Agency served 478 enforcement notices (up from 411 in 2000).
  • On 27 June, following pressure from the European Commission, the UK government announced the designation of 33 new "sensitive areas" under the EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 1991 (91/271/EC). The total number of sensitive areas in England and Wales is now 297. The Directive requires sensitive areas to be designated in areas that are eutrophic or at risk of becoming so or where advanced sewage treatment is needed to meet water quality targets in other EC Directives.
    The designations will require significant investment from water companies. Further designations could be required by the Commission. It is unclear as yet how the investment costs will affect the water industry’s 2005 price review.
  • In 2001, the Environment Agency designated two landfill sites at Helpston near St Albans as "Special Sites" under Part IIA of the EPA 1990 (see Digests from 2000 for bulletins on Part IIA). Last July, the Agency declared the sites to be "orphan" sites because the former operator, Hunts Refuse Disposals, could not pay the necessary remediation costs and there were no other potentially liable parties. The cost of the remediation is estimated at £8 million and will have to be met by the UK taxpayer.
  • In July, a housing development built on the site of an old chemical plant in Sandridge, Hertfordshire, was declared a "special site" under Part IIA of the EPA 1990. This was despite the housing developer having carried out remedial works in the mid 1980s to satisfy a condition to the granting of planning permission. With hindsight, the remedial measures had failed to address the possibility of groundwater contamination which was subsequently found to be occurring.
  • The Environment Agency’s draft five year corporate strategy, which is currently out for consultation, states that the Agency is aiming, under Part IIA of the EPA, to designate 80 "special sites" by the year 2007.
  • The government’s White Paper on Modernising Company Law (Cm 5553), published in July, may impose additional environmental reporting requirements on companies. Corporate environmental reporting in the UK is not mandatory, although some companies voluntarily produce a stand-alone environmental report.
    The White Paper proposes that public companies with a turnover of over £50 million and 500 employees and private companies with a turnover of over £500 million and over 5,000 employees should prepare an "Operating and Financial Review" ("OFR").
    Directors will be required to disclose information in the OFR to enable shareholders to make an informed assessment of the company’s operations, its financial position and its future business strategies and prospects. They will also be required. to consider a wide range of matters where they are relevant to the company’s business, including the company’s environmental and social policies, its performance in carrying out these policies and any other matters which may affect the company’s reputation.
    The White Paper specifies that directors’ duties should include consideration of both the short and long term consequences of their actions and take into account, where relevant, such matters as their relationships with employees and customers, the impact on the community and the environment and the need to maintain a reputation for high standards of business conduct.
  • In July, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution started a limited study of the environmental effects of air transport.
    The study will concentrate on the problems associated with aircraft in flight, in particular in relation to climate change. Other aviation-related environmental issues (such as take off and landing noise) will not be covered in any detail. The study will consider the potential for technical solutions (for example, improving engine efficiency) and economic measures (for example, emissions trading) to reduce environmental impacts. The findings are anticipated to be published in advance of the White Paper on air transport, due at the end of 2002.


  • There is unlikely to be a common position on the proposed EC Directive on environmental liability until February 2003 at the earliest. Issues that are contentious include the permit defence, proposals for mandatory financial assurance and the proposal for Member States to be responsible where the liable party cannot be identified or is unable to pay (see the Spring 2002 Digest).


  • The World Summit on Sustainable Development took place in Johannesburg between 26 August and 4 September. The key commitments were as follows:
  • halve the number of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015;
  • minimise harmful effects on human health and the environment from the production and use of chemicals by 2020;
  • halt the decline of fish stocks and restore them to sustainable levels no later than 2015;
  • to increase access to modern energy services, increase energy efficiency and increase the use of renewable energy;
  • and to reduce biodiversity loss by 2010.



  • On 26 June, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, held that the appropriate approach to allocating costs between multiple policies on risk during a continuous occurrence is joint and several liability up to the limits of triggered policies. The coverage clause interpreted by the court provided that insurers agreed to "pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of … property damage to which this policy applies caused by an occurrence". "Property damage" was defined to mean "injury to or destruction of tangible property which occurs during the policy period".
    The court concluded that the plain language of the clause covered the insured for all costs arising from property damage if some of the damage had occurred during the policy period. The court commented that the clause did not contain any language to reduce insurers’ liability if damage occurred only partially during the policy period. Accordingly, the court held that the insured could select a single triggered primary policy for each site at issue in the action. If the limits of that policy were insufficient to cover the claim, the insured could select another triggered primary or excess policy and so on. Insurers whose policies were selected could seek contribution from other insurers whose policies were on the risk during the occurrence.
  • On 25 June, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance v. Borough of Bellmawr, adopted a bright-line rule that an "occurrence" under the continuous trigger of coverage begins when hazardous waste is first placed into a landfill or other containment area that was considered to be secure. The court reasoned that such a rule should be adopted due to the impossibility in some situations of determining when leachate from waste first begins to pollute groundwater.
    In addition, the court refined its pro rata formula for allocating costs. It held that an insurer whose general liability policy was on risk for 45 days of an 880-day "occurrence" is only liable for approximately 0.05 per cent of the clean-up costs subject to its policy limit. In reaching its conclusion, the court held that in such a case, the proportion of costs for which an insurer is liable should be determined by days rather than years on the risk.
  • On 23 April, the California Court of Appeal, in People ex rel. City of Willits v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, held that the State of California has a direct action against the London market insurers of a manufacturing company’s successors. Insurers had issued six excess umbrella policies between 1966 and 1973 to the company, which had caused contamination at its facility. The state subsequently prevailed in an action for clean-up costs against the company’s successors and, thus, became a judgment creditor of the insured.
    The parties entered into a consent decree that established a trust fund into which the companies paid $9,350,000. The companies agreed to pay further sums if necessary and if demanded by the trust. The state agreed not to execute on the judgment or any order for additional amounts on the companies’ assets with the exception of their rights to proceeds from specified insurance policies including the six excess umbrella policies.
    The California Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling that the California Insurance Code does not include excess policies in the types of policies which are required to provide for a direct action by a person who has obtained a judgment for property damage. Because the requisite language was not in the policies, the court read it into them by default.
  • On 6 August, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. City of Lodi, held that the California Insurance Code pre-empts an ordinance enacted by a California municipality that enabled the municipality to bring a direct action against potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") under Superfund before the municipality had obtained a final order or judgment against an insured PRP. The court stated that if the municipality was a PRP, it could not legislate itself out of liability for clean-up costs. Thus, the court held that provisions of the ordinance which provided, amongst other things, protection from contribution actions by other PRPs and recovery of the municipality’s attorney fees were pre-empted. The action concerned contamination of groundwater, which was the municipality’s only source of drinking water, by tetrachloroethylene from four dry cleaning facilities
  • On 28 August, the Indiana Supreme Court, in Freidline v. Shelby Insurance, affirmed the Indiana Court of Appeals’ ruling that the absolute pollution exclusion is ambiguous and that the word "pollutants" does not obviously include carpet glue (see the Spring/Summer 2001 Digest). The exclusion defines "pollutants" as "any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste". The case arose when employees who worked in an office building brought an action for bodily injuries against the building’s owners and carpet installation contractors. The employees argued that toxic fumes from the carpet glue had caused them to become sick.
    The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling that insurers had acted in bad faith by denying the claim. The court stated that the insured had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that insurers had breached their duty to act in good faith. The court noted that the absolute pollution exclusion is "one of the most frequently litigated exceptions found in a staple insurance industry product – the comprehensive general liability policy". The court also commented that the exclusion’s interpretation is an evolving area of law.

News from Hong Kong

News from our Hong Kong office covering the Far East.

  • Hong Kong will host Better Air Quality in Asia and Pacific Rim Cities 2002 from 16 to 18 December, the largest event on air quality management in Asia in 2002. The third in a series of air pollution workshops convened in Hong Kong, the main theme of the workshop is the sharing of technological and control experience and information on air quality management in the region.
  • As part of an ongoing study, the Hong Kong government sought views in June and July from different sectors, particularly from academic institutions, green groups and professional bodies, on a set of proposed water quality criteria for evaluation in terms of the environmental acceptability of discharging treated effluent into Hong Kong harbour waters.
  • A seminar organised by the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department and the Hong Kong Construction Association to introduce training tools for environmental protection was held on 12 July. The tools include a pocket handbook for frontline construction workers, "Train-the- Trainer" compliance assistance, a CD-ROM package for construction companies, a tailor-made course for site foremen on environmental legislation requirements, and a video on good construction and dust minimisation practices.

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.