Marshell Oil LLP v Environment Agency
[2023] UKFTT 948 (GRC)
Safeguard World International Holdings Limited v Environment Agency
5 January 2024
[2024] UKFTT 34 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company failed to follow energy-saving rules. The government fined them. The company tried to appeal saying they were busy because of COVID-19. The judge said the fine was fair even though it was a lot of money, because the company should have followed the rules.
Key Facts
- •Safeguard World International Holdings Limited (Safeguard) appealed a £2,625 penalty notice from the Environment Agency for non-compliance with the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) Regulations 2014.
- •Safeguard failed to submit its ESOS Phase 2 notification by the December 2019 deadline and subsequently ignored several compliance and enforcement notices.
- •The Environment Agency applied its Enforcement and Sanctions Policy (ESP) to determine the penalty, considering Safeguard's culpability, size, and mitigating/aggravating factors.
- •Safeguard's primary defense was that the COVID-19 pandemic and remote working prevented them from receiving notices.
- •The appeal was heard without a hearing by the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
Legal Principles
An appeal against a penalty notice can be brought on the grounds that the notice was based on an error of fact, wrong in law, or unreasonable.
Regulation 48(1)
'Unreasonable' in the context of Regulation 48(1) does not mean unreasonableness in the classic public law sense (Wednesbury unreasonableness), but rather unfair, unsound, or excessive. Appropriate weight must be given to the Environment Agency's view.
Regulation 48(1), Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, Hesham Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found no error of fact or law in the Environment Agency's application of the ESP. The penalty, while high, was within the appropriate range and considered aggravating and mitigating factors. The Tribunal rejected Safeguard's argument that the penalty was unreasonable.