Legal brief: Taking a regulator to court

7th July 2014


Related Topics

Related tags

  • Legislation

Author

Alan Page

In the aftermath of the winter floods, Simon Colvin highlights the key legal barriers organisations and individuals face when attempting to sue a regulator

When can you sue an environment regulator for getting it wrong is a question clients often ask me. Taking action against a regulator has also emerged as a hot topic since the flooding earlier in the year, which some have suggested could have been prevented or better controlled if the Environment Agency had dredged rivers more frequently or maintained flood defences more regularly.

The short answer to the question is yes, but with difficulty. Simply, the person seeking to bring the claim would need to demonstrate they were owed a duty of care by the regulator, that the duty had been breached and that the infraction resulted in them suffering harm or loss.

In environmental cases, there is a requirement to demonstrate that the regulator owed the person affected a duty of care, and this is the most difficult hurdle to overcome. It helps to consider this point in relation to the two routes open to those wanting to bring a claim against a regulator: a breach of statutory duty and a breach of common law duty.

Statutory duty

It is notoriously difficult to successfully bring a claim for breach of statutory duty - for example, under s4 of the Environment Act 1995 (EA 1995), which places a duty on the agency to act to protect and enhance the environment. The primary reasons for this difficulty are twofold:

  • many statutes do not create such a right and it was never the intention of parliament to confer that right on those affected by a breach of duty; and
  • such duties are often for the benefit of the public at large as opposed to a specific group. Generally it is only where a duty is owed to a specific group that a claim can be brought for breach of a statutory duty. Also, the courts take the view it is not in the public interest to subject regulators to such duties, so they often come down on the side of the regulator when interpreting statutes.

It is important to note that EU law gives rise to a number of important duties relating to the environment - for example, arts 11 and 191 of the Treaty on European Union. There is also a EU principle that there should be effective remedies for breaches of European law. It is arguable that if a regulator were in breach of its environmental duties under EU law it would give rise to an actionable claim.

Common law duty

Generally, liability for the negligent exercise of a power conferred on a regulator will arise only where it has assumed a specific duty or responsibility to the person affected, such as through specific knowledge, or where that person has been exposed to a risk due to circumstances created by the regulator.

In practice it is rare for such circumstances to occur, at least to the extent necessary to give rise to a duty. It is the courts that are often asked to consider this question. Generally they are reluctant to interpret the circumstances as giving rise to the existence of a duty.

The justification for a reluctance to impose a duty is that it is not fair and reasonable to do so. Nor would it be in the public interest because the imposition of such a duty could inhibit the regulator's ability to exercise its various statutory functions. That said, there are situations in which the actions of the regulators - whereby they have had specific knowledge or undertake specific steps without regard to those who might be affected - can give rise to an actionable duty.

No successful environmental cases have been reported. That is probably because it is such a high hurdle to demonstrate the existence of "special circumstances" and also because any claims that are likely to be successful tend to be settled before reaching the courts. Examples of unsuccessful cases against an environment regulator include Dodson v Environment Agency [2013] EWHC 396 and Sterling v NIEA [2014] (see panel, below, for details).

The ever-increasing influence of EU legal principles and the growing prevalence of claims against other enforcement agencies, such as the police, suggest it is only a matter of time before we start to see more claims against the environmental regulator from those who suffer harm or losses due to the negligent or improper exercise of their powers.

Those bringing such claims will need to show the existence of special circumstances. But I wonder, if such claims become more prevalent, whether we will see a softening of the courts' stance towards the question of whether or not a duty of care was owed in the first place. I think we might.

Subscribe

Subscribe to IEMA's newsletters to receive timely articles, expert opinions, event announcements, and much more, directly in your inbox.


Transform articles

UK off track for net zero by 2030, CCC warns

Only a third of the emission reductions required for the UK to achieve net zero by 2030 are covered by credible plans, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) has warned today.

18th July 2024

Read more

Three in five British adults want more public involvement in the planning system, which could be at odds with Labour’s plans to boost economic growth, IEMA research has found.

3rd July 2024

Read more

Ahead of the UK general election next month, IEMA has analysed the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Green Party manifestos in relation to the sustainability agenda.

19th June 2024

Read more

Disinformation about the impossibility of averting the climate crisis is part of an alarming turn in denialist tactics, writes David Burrows

6th June 2024

Read more

Rivers and waterways across England and Wales are increasingly polluted by sewage spills. What is causing the crisis and what is being done to tackle it? Huw Morris reports

31st May 2024

Read more

IEMA submits response to the Future Homes Standard consultation

31st May 2024

Read more

Media enquires

Looking for an expert to speak at an event or comment on an item in the news?

Find an expert

IEMA Cookie Notice

Clicking the ‘Accept all’ button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies. Our website uses necessary cookies which are required in order to make our website work. In addition to these, we use analytics and third-party cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. To control which cookies are set, click ‘Settings’. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our website and how to change your cookie settings please view our cookie policy.

Manage cookie settings

Our use of cookies

You can learn more detailed information in our cookie policy.

Some cookies are essential, but non-essential cookies help us to improve the experience on our site by providing insights into how the site is being used. To maintain privacy management, this relies on cookie identifiers. Resetting or deleting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.

Essential cookies

These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. They include, for example, cookies that enable you to log into secure areas of our website.

Analytics cookies

These cookies allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors to our website and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works.

Advertising cookies

These cookies allow us to tailor advertising to you based on your interests. If you do not accept these cookies, you will still see adverts, but these will be more generic.

Save and close