Judgment Quashes Unlawful Search Warrants Issued by York Magistrates' Court Under Environment Act 1995

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2817 (Admin)
Judgment on


The case of DLR Holdings Limited & Anor, R (on the application of) v York Magistrates’ Court & Anor [2023] EWHC 2817 (Admin), presided by Mr. Justice Fordham, engages with significant principles of administrative and environmental law concerning the lawful issuance of warrants and their subsequent quashing due to unlawfulness. This analysis dissects the legal facets of the judgment approving a consent order, concerning warrants issued under the Environment Act 1995.

Key Facts

DLR Holdings Limited and Orange Box Systems Limited (the Claimants) sought judicial review of warrants issued by York Magistrates’ Court at the behest of the Environment Agency (the Second Defendant) that purported to authorize searches of premises on Cumberland Street and Amsterdam Road in Hull. These warrants were stated to be grounded in the powers conferred by section 108 and schedule 18 of the Environment Act 1995. The Agency conceded that the warrants contained an error by inappropriately referring to a “search” power not legally exercisable, delegitimizing the warrants’ issuance.

The core legal principles outlined in this judgment center on the concept of legality and proper exercise of statutory powers. Key points include:

  1. Open Justice Principle: The judgment accentuates the importance of open justice, substantiating the reasoning behind the court’s determination through a public judgment rather than a private court order. This principle ensures transparency in judicial proceedings and accessibility to the rationale behind decisions.

  2. Power to Quash Warrants: Recognizing the warrants’ unlawfulness, the court exercised its inherent power to quash the warrants, highlighting the judicial check on administrative actions that exceed or misconstrue conferred powers.

  3. Consent Orders: The judgment illustrates the procedural mechanism where parties can agree to an order, nullifying the need for further litigation. This reflects an acknowledgment by the agency of the legal error and the Court’s endorsement of the proposed consent order.

  4. Civil Procedure Rules (CPR): Reference to CPR PD54A §16 elucidates the court’s approach to consent orders and the significance of all parties’ agreement, or at least the absence of any objection, thereby facilitating a streamlined judicial process.

  5. Statutory Interpretation: The decision foregrounds the importance of accuracy in statutory interpretation — how warrants issued must mirror the precise statutory language and authority, in this instance, derived from the Environment Act 1995.

  6. Destruction of Illegally Obtained Material: The court’s order stipulated that all material obtained through the execution of the unlawful warrants be destroyed, emphasizing the principle that evidence collected via illegal means should not be utilized.


Consequent to the judgment, the following resolutions were ordered:

  1. The warrants in question were to be quashed.
  2. A declaration was made as to their unlawful issuance.
  3. A decree for the return of any property seized and the destruction of all material, copied or recorded during the warrants’ execution, within 28 days.
  4. The transfer of the claim for damages to the Manchester County Court for further case management.
  5. The Environment Agency was directed to bear the Claimants’ costs related to the quashing order, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, along with an immediate payment of 60% of these costs.


In sum, the case of DLR Holdings Limited & Anor v York Magistrates’ Court & Anor [2023] resonates within the broader compass of administrative law, specifically underscoring the judiciary’s role in ensuring that the exercise of statutory powers by administrative bodies remains within the bounds of legality. Further, it reinforces that any material gathered unlawfully cannot be used and affirms the role of consent orders in achieving an expedited resolution between the parties within legal proceedings. Importantly, the case also serves as a pertinent reminder regarding the meticulous application of statutory provisions and the implications of error.

Related Summaries