Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd
Compliance with an environmental permit is not a defence to a claim in nuisance, and the ordinary principles of nuisance apply to a landfill site operating under a permit.
Facts
Biffa operated a landfill site near a housing estate in Ewell. It began to accept pre treated waste, which produced strong and offensive smells affecting about 150 households. The site was operated in compliance with its waste management licence and later its environmental permit. The residents brought a group action in nuisance. The judge held that the use of the site in accordance with the permit was a reasonable use of land, so that the residents had to show that Biffa had been negligent.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed the residents' appeal. Carnwath LJ said that there was no principle that compliance with a permit or other statutory authority defeated a claim in nuisance, unless the statute authorised the nuisance, expressly or by necessary implication, and the permit did not do so. The ordinary principles of nuisance applied, and the question was whether the smells amounted to a substantial interference with the residents' enjoyment of their land, judged by the standards of the ordinary person in the locality. The case was sent back for the claims to be decided on that basis.
Related cases on environmental torts and civil liability
- Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 1001
- Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264
- Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 463, [2009] QB 335
- Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822
- Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 28
- Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd [1993] QB 343
- Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 683
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
Studying environmental law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
