Environment Agency v Thorn International, 2009 Env LR 10
Citation:Environment Agency v Thorn International, 2009 Env LR 10
Rule of thumb: If waste recycling requirements put too onerous a burden on the person, are they valid? No, if the recycling requirements are unreasonable then a person does not have to comply with them.
Judgment:
This case affirmed that even although the test for waste is strict, it cannot be too strict to make anything that is not brand new or at its peak ‘waste’. This is an example of a case that was easy to defend – there is a clear line before something should be deemed to be done, completely finished, garbage and technically ‘waste’, and that just because something is losing it, past its best, needs some attention, or on the way down it does not mean that it is technically ‘waste’ legally speaking. The facts of this case were that old electronic products were being bought, looked at by engineers, and then decided if they could be touched up or repaired to be resold. If the electronic products could be touched up and restored then they were kept on the premises. The Court held that any electronic product that was deemed by an engineer to be able to improved and resold then it was not ‘waste’ The Court held that when certain electronic products were deemed to be resalable with some work done to them then these were not deemed to be ‘waste’ legally speaking, and it was only if they were deemed to be unsalvageable that they were deemed to be waste legally speaking ‘... I reject the contention that the Justices were bound to conclude that the electrical goods were ... automatically... waste... because the consumer no longer wants it. In my view that is far too extreme a view and far too stringent a rule... capable of reuse with some repair or refurbishment... it depends on all the circumstances’, Moses LJ 21-26
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.