In this case, the plaintiff owned a fishery adjacent to the River Cegin and complains that its farmed carps have been victims to the predatory action of otters coming from the River Cegin. The plaintiff blamed the Environmental Agency’s otter enhancement programme for the destruction of its fish stock.

The plaintiff sued the Environmental Agency in front of the High Court and argued that the agency owned him a duty to care to advise him of that the otter enhancement programme would present a risk for its fish stock. The plaintiff also raised the fact that no public consultation had taken place before the implementation of the project within the area.

The High Court dismissed the appeal because it considered that the Environmental Agency was not responsible for the construction of the otter holts of the otter enhancement programme because many bodies had been involved in that project. Also the judge of the court did not consider that the linkage between the damages done, the loss of the carps, and the construction of otter’ holts was foreseeable. Finally, the judge held that no public consultation was required for this kind of environmental programme aiming at enhancing wildlife.

As a result, the judge did not consider that the Environmental Agency had any duty of care under those circumstances.

Country: 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Type of document: 
Court name: 
High Court of Justice
Court jurisdiction: 
Reference number: 
[2005] UKHL 56
Number of pages: 
20
Justice(s): 
Keyser, Q.C.
ECOLEX subject(s): 
Seat of court: 
Cardiff
Date of entry: 
Fri, 15 April 2016
Date of modification: 
Fri, 15 April 2016
Status: 
Date of text: 
Thu, 13 October 2016
Region: 
Data source: 
Source language: 
English
The accuracy of the information is the responsibility of the contributing source. In case of discrepancies / technical issues the information at the source prevails. Please help us improve this site – report issues here