R (on the application of Gentle & Others) v (1) The Prime Minister (2) The Secretary of State for Defence (3) The Attorney General [2006] EWCA Civ 1078

The Queen on the application of Singh v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2006] EWCA Civ 1118

R (Boughton & others) v HM Treasury [2006] EWCA Civ 504

R (on the application of Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda) v the Secretary of State For Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 327

R (on the application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and others) v the Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWCA Civ 1609

Hereford Waste Watchers Limited v Hereford Council [2005] EWHC 191 (Admin)

John Blewett v Derbyshire Waste Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 1508

R (on the application of Purja and others) v Ministry of Defence [2003] All ER (D) 307 (Feb), (2003) Times, 10 March

R (on the application of Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003] EWHC 07 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 197 (Jan)

R (on the application of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) v Prime Minister and others [2002] EWHC 2777 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 245 (Dec), (2002) Times, 27 December

R (Gurung and others) v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWHC 2463 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 409 (Nov), (2002) Times, 28 December

R v Hampshire CC, ex parte Vetterlein [2001] All ER (D) 146 (Jun)

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] EWCA Civ 03, [2002] All ER (D) 220 (Jan), (2002) Independent, 31 January, CA

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] All ER (D) 345, (2001) Times, 1 May, QBD

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2002] 3 WLR 875, [2002] JPL 937 [2002] 05 EG 132 (CS), (2002) Times, 1 February [2002] All ER (D) 149 (Jan), CA

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2000] All ER (D) 1102, (2000) Times, 5 October, [2001] EHLR 94

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 5 [2002] 05 EG 131 (CS) 131

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 4 [2000] All ER (D) 1300, (2000) Times, 8 November, QBD

R v North Warwicksire CC, ex parte Howe and Jones [2001] All ER (D) 16 (Mar)

R v Leicestershire CC, ex parte Blackfordby and Boothorpe Action Group [2000] JPL 1266

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Turnbull (2000) Env LR 715

R v The Environment Agency ex parte Sellers and Another [1999] Env LR 73-113

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Leam

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Gibson

Lubrizol Limited v Tyndallwoods, Solicitors (1998) The Lawyer, 24 April 1998, QBD

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) Env LR 719, [1998] JPL 787, CA

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) ENDS 276, (1998) Env LR 560, QBD

R v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods (1997) JPL 958, (1998) Env LR 277, CA

R v North Somerset District Council and Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Limited ex parte Garnett and Pierssene (1997) JPL 1015, QBD

R v Somerset County Council and ARC Southern Limited ex parte Richard Dixon (1997) JPL 1030, [1997] C.O.D 227, QBD

R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Brown [1997] Env LR 100, (1997) JPL 337, QBD

Ghost Ships

In 2003 British company Able UK completed a deal the US government to dispose of 13 toxic "ghost ships". We acted for objectors to plans by Hartlepool Council to allow four to be dismantled in Teeside yard. The site where the ships are proposed to be scrapped in Hartlepool is adjacent to sensitive wildlife habitats that are protected under European and international law.

According to US Government agency assessments, the fabric of the ships included hundreds of tonnes of toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos, as well as heavy fuel, diesel oil and oily water. Asbestos related diseases (mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer) are thought to kill at least 3,000 people a year and have been particularly serious in the North East. PCBs are recognised as one of the 12 most toxic groups of chemicals worldwide.
The 400 tonnes of the chemicals PCBs present in the first four ships are in a solid state, and therefore there is little risk of them leaking. But once extracted from the ships, waste containing PCBs will be dumped in landfill locally.

The wildlife site most threatened by the Ghost Ships deal was Seal Sands - a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), protected under European and International law. It is an important feeding ground for more than 20,000 birds, with important concentrations of knot and redshank. Nearby mudflats are winter feeding grounds for dunlin, oyster catcher, ringed plover, curlew, bar-tailed godwit, lapwing, grey plover and turnstone. The site could have been damaged by pollution from the ships or from the noise created which could scare the birds from the feeding grounds.

The three Hartlepool residents, whom we represented, were successful in there High Court case against Hartlepool Council and Able UK. In verbally explaining his judgment, Mr. Justice Sullivan was damning about the handling of this affair by the Environment Agency and Hartlepool Council. He called for an inquiry into the decision-making process that led to the "highly unsatisfactory" situation of four ships now being held in Hartlepool without planning permissions or waste management licences. He also stated that he has not yet seen an environment statement covering the scrapping of these ships.

Mike Childs, Campaigns Director at Friends of the Earth, said:

"The residents' victory is a real David versus Goliath moment. Three local residents stood up for what they believed in, despite facing the might of the US Government, attacks from Peter Mandelson MP and at times extremely hostile media coverage. Mr. Justice Sullivan's remarks should make the regulators bow their heads in shame. They tried to force these US ships on the people of Hartlepool with no consultation, no adequate exploration of the environmental risks and without proper legal licences in place."

Hartlepool councillors decided on 11 October 2006 not to grant permission to Able UK to allow work to start.

Ghost Ships

External Links