- About Us
- Areas of Expertise
- Instructing Us
- News & Events
Posted on: 25 June 2018
Environmental Law News UpdateTweet
In this latest Environmental Law News Update, Christopher Badger and Charles Morgan consider the issues raised at this weekend’s UKELA Conference, a Government review into organised waste crime, and misrepresentations in enquiries before contract and non-reliance clauses.
UKELA debates the future of environmental law
UKELA has just held its annual conference at the University of Kent, Canterbury, under the title ‘Past Reflections and Future Horizons: Environmental law in a post-Brexit World’.
The conference threw up a number of significant issues that are likely to heavily influence the development of environmental law in the years ahead:
One of the most impactful speeches of the conference saw Emma Lui confidently describe the generational transition towards caring for the environment and the awareness of the need to improve environmental standards. Also featuring highly was the cross-over between environmental law and other fields, in particular infrastructure planning, corporate responsibilities and the health and well-being agenda. There was common agreement that this is an extremely exciting time to be involved in environmental law.
Government launches review into organised waste crime
The government has announced a review into serious and organised crime in the waste sector. The purpose of the review is to enable DEFRA to make actionable recommendations for a strategic approach to waste crime, to be published in a new resources and waste strategy. It is intended that the review will:
At present, an online questionnaire consisting of 18 questions has been published. The questions are phrased in an extremely open manner and leave themselves open to a wide range of responses. For example, question 16 reads:
“16. What would most help develop effective partnerships to tackle serious and organised waste crime?”
This doesn’t indicate that DEFRA have, at this stage, fully grasped how they should attempt to tackle the problem of organised waste crime or at this stage have any initial views on a clear strategy. No doubt they would respond that identifying the most effective method of combating waste crime and its protagonists is part of why this review has been launched.
The questionnaire can be found here
No More Reliance on Non-Reliance Clauses?
Misrepresentations in enquiries before contract and non-reliance clauses revisited.
Many readers of this blog are involved in the negotiation of transactions in which actual or potential environmental liabilities loom large. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in First Tower Trustees Ltd. v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd  EWCA Civ 1396 is of importance to all such practitioners.
CDS leased four industrial units which transpired to be so contaminated with asbestos as to be dangerous to enter. Before entering into the leases it had made enquiries before contract using the Commercial Property Standard Enquiries form. Enquiry 15 contained questions related to environmental matters, the gist of most of the answers given being to the effect that the buyer should satisfy itself. Enquiry 15.7 asked for details of actual or potential environmental problems, to which the answer given was that the landlords had not been notified of any such problems but, again, the buyer should satisfy itself. It was accepted that this was in fact a misrepresentation because, whilst true at the date of the actual reply, prior to exchange/completion the landlords had become aware of actual or potential asbestos contamination. The Enquiries imposed in their interpretation section an obligation upon the landlords to notify CDS of anything arising during the intervening period which might cause any reply to be incorrect. The landlords had not done so.
CDS sought damages for misrepresentation in reliance upon section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The landlords invoked in response two principal arguments: (1) that the non-reliance clauses to be found in both the leases and agreements for leases applicable to the various units were “basis of contract” clauses delimiting the parties’ primary obligations in a manner which prevented section 3 being engaged at all (2) that even if section 3 was engaged, the non-reliance clauses had the effect of excluding liability. CDS in return alleged that the clauses failed to satisfy the requirement of reasonableness found in section 11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Both the deputy High Court Judge and the Court of Appeal found in favour of CDS. The judgments of both Lewison and Leggatt LJJ (with both of whom Sir Colin Rimer agreed) are lengthy and repay full reading. In essence the court held (1) that the non-reliance clauses did engage section 3 of the 1967 Act and thus the test of reasonableness in section 11 of the 1977 Act; (2) that the non – reliance clauses did not satisfy the requirement of reasonableness.
At the heart of the first conclusion was the proposition that the liability under section 3 is a statutory liability arising by operation of law independently of anything in the contract which was induced by the representation. As to the second, having considered all the relevant factors, Lewison LJ concluded that: “Although there might be a case where, on exceptional facts, a clause which precludes reliance on replies to enquiries before contract might be held to satisfy the test of reasonableness even where those replies have in fact been relied on, I find it very hard to imagine what those facts might be.”
This significant decision, which at the very least severely curtails the scope for deployment of any “basis of contract” argument in this context and further strongly protects the integrity of the process of enquiries by contract, seems likely to lead, either in the case under consideration or some future one, to a visit to the Supreme Court to settle the matter and to clarify the relevant legal principles, which are of very widespread application.
The full judgments can be found here.
To keep up-to-date click here to subscribe to the mailing list. If you have any comments or suggestions please contact Bridget Tough at email@example.com
Friday 13th July – Regulatory Law Conference 2018 (Birmingham)
Six Pump Court is very pleased to be hosting its Regulatory Law Conference 2018 which will take place in Birmingham on 13th July. The event will cover a variety of topics providing essential updates on specialist areas, informative discussion on topical issues and practical tips for those acting in regulatory matters. Click here for more information and to book.