Historical Pollution in the UK (England and Wales): The Residual Role Played by Criminal Law

Mitsilegas, Valsamis; Fasoli, Elena

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56937-6_9

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The common feature shared by P2A and the SPL is both liability regimes for soil pollution based on the public or administrative approach. This administrative nature is primarily evident in the initial identification of contaminated land or soil pollution [75] (p. 235). Under section 78B of P2A, local authorities bear the responsibility of identifying contaminated land [17].…”

Section: Nature Of Liability Regime For Soil Pollutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this way, public funds can cover part or even the entire cost of remediation. In the fiscal year 2009/2010, DEFRA allocated £17.5 million via the Contaminated Land fund; however, this funding significantly decreased to £2 million per annum in 2013/2014 [75] (P. 239). Starting from April 2017, DEFRA ceased providing contaminated land funding as capital grants to local councils [83].…”

Section: Financial Guarantee In Case Of Insolvencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Role of Liability Regime in Addressing Historical Contaminated Land Problems: A Comparative Perspective from England and China

Cui,

2023

Ecological Civilization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article conducts a comparative analysis of contaminated land regimes in China and England, focusing on their development, liability attribution, key principles, administrative nature, and financial guarantees. Both regimes are risk-based and are supported by the Polluter Pays Principle and the Stewardship Principle. They have similar liability arrangements: attributing the liability firstly to the polluter and then to landowners/occupiers or the usufructuaries. Administrative authorities under both regimes hold pivotal roles in remediating land on certain occasions. However, the cost recovery mechanisms vary due to the different constitutional roles among enforcing authorities, courts, and liable parties in the two countries. Both regimes impose retrospective liability, yet England provides detailed rules regarding the hardship provision and exclusion tests, preventing the unfair allocation of liability more effectively. Experience from England highlights the limited role of legal regimes in managing historical pollution, emphasising the need for supplementary mechanisms. This is why financial support is critical for effective land remediation in both countries.

show abstract

Section: Nature Of Liability Regime For Soil Pollutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Financial Guarantee In Case Of Insolvencymentioning

confidence: 99%