Tribunal Reduces Civil Penalty in Klima-Therm v Environment Agency Case for F Gas Regulation Breach

Citation: [2023] UKFTT 1080 (GRC)
Judgment on


In the case of Klima-Therm Limited v The Environment Agency ([2023] UKFTT 1080 (GRC)), the UK First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) considered an appeal against a civil penalty imposed by the Environment Agency (EA) under the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Regulations 2015 (F Gas Regulations). The penalty was issued due to the appellant’s failure to obtain necessary hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) quota authorisations before placing them on the market within Great Britain. This article analyses the decision, exploring the key legal principles and their application.

Key Facts

Klima-Therm Limited (KTL), a small company, appealed against a civil penalty of £44,725 for failing to comply with the GB F-gas quota system under Article 14(1) of EU Regulation 517/2014 and the corresponding UK regulations. KTL believed it had sufficient quota through another company within its group, Gree UK Limited (GUL), which had remaining quota authorisations that KTL thought it could use. However, no formal transfer of quota from GUL to KTL had taken place.

KTL attempted to engage with the newly established GB F-gas regime post-Brexit and sought guidance from the EA, which was found to be complex and insufficiently clear. The penalty was originally calculated based on the maximum price of quota authorisations in 2021, despite the fact that quota was available at lower prices and KTL had paid for GUL’s unutilised authorisations.

Several key legal principles are at play in this matter:

Regulation Compliance

The appellant’s requirement for compliance under the F Gas Regulations, as represented by EU Regulation 517/2014 and domestically under Reg. 31A of F Gas Regulations 2015, is central to the dispute.

Error of Fact and Reasonableness

The Tribunal evaluated whether the EA’s decision to serve a civil penalty notice was based on an error of fact, was wrong for any other reason than wrong in law, or unreasonable, with emphasis on the nature of the breach, culpability, financial gain, history of non-compliance, attitude, and personal circumstances of the appellant.

Financial Gain Estimation

After considering the appellant’s actual financial gain or savings by avoiding compliance, the Tribunal noted that this did not reflect the punitive imposition initially based on the highest 2021 quota prices.


A significant aspect of the Tribunal’s determination was assessing if the imposed penalty was proportionate, considering factors such as culpability, financial gain, and company size.


The necessity for a penalty to serve as a deterrent to future non-compliance, relevant to uphold the integrity of the environmental regulatory regime.

The applicability of these principles was drawn from the F Gas Regulations themselves, particularly Reg. 31A, Schedules 2, 4, and 5, as well as the EA’s own updated Enforcement and Sanctions Policy.


The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant’s efforts to comply with the regulatory regime and its lack of intention to breach the regulations. A finding of negligence was deemed appropriate rather than a more serious level of culpability.

After a step-by-step analysis in accordance with the EA’s Enforcement and Sanctions Policy, the Tribunal found that the initial amount of the civil penalty was unreasonable. The Tribunal determined that a reduced penalty of £20,000 was more appropriate, balancing the need for a deterrent against the principle of proportionality and the specific circumstances of the breach, including misunderstandings and the quality of available guidance.


The Klima-Therm Limited v The Environment Agency decision underscores the First-tier Tribunal’s role in evaluating the reasonableness of administrative penalties. It further illustrates the tribunal’s willingness to consider the totality of circumstances, including the clarity and accessibility of guidance provided to regulated entities, and any genuine efforts towards compliance. The nuanced application of legal principles of reasonableness and proportionality highlights the UK’s regulatory emphasis on fostering a compliance-oriented culture while maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of environmental regulations. This case reiterates that punitive measures should reflect both the nature of the breach and the offending party’s conduct within the overall context of the regulatory framework.

Related Summaries