Marshell Oil LLP v Environment Agency
[2023] UKFTT 948 (GRC)
Lord Demolition v The Environment Agency
24 March 2023
[2023] UKFTT 515 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company was fined for polluting a river. They appealed, saying they were following someone else's instructions and the fine was too high. The judge agreed, lowering the fine and costs significantly because of the company's quick cleanup, the government's delay, and some unclear communication.
Key Facts
- •Lord Demolition appealed against a £1000 variable monetary penalty (VMP) and £3119.85 enforcement costs imposed by the Environment Agency.
- •The incident involved the illegal deposit of dredging spoils, which slipped into the River Tame, causing pollution.
- •The pollution occurred on 21 November 2018, and the appeal hearing took place approximately 4.5 years later.
- •Lord Demolition argued they acted under the instructions of Guy Holding, the site proprietor, and that the Agency's actions were unreasonable.
- •The Environment Agency argued Lord Demolition was negligent and uncooperative.
Legal Principles
Offence under Section 4 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 is a strict liability offence.
Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, Section 4
The standard of proof for the Environment Agency's decision to pursue civil sanctions is beyond reasonable doubt.
Environment Agency's Enforcement and Sanctions Policy, Annex 1; Sentencing Council's definitive guidelines for sentencing of environmental offences
The Tribunal has broad powers of review if satisfied on the balance of probability that the decision to impose sanctions was wrong in law or fact, unreasonable, or for any other reason.
Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) Order 2010, Article 10
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Tribunal found the original penalty and costs excessive, considering mitigating factors such as the Appellant's prompt cleanup, lack of prior offences, and the Agency's delay and failure to adequately explain the legal implications to a layman.
VMP varied to £625.
Reduction reflects mitigating factors and excessive delay.
Enforcement costs varied to £2441.23.
Reduction reflects perceived duplication and excessive charges for legal advice and investigation costs; halving of investigation and administration costs; 25% reduction in legal fees.