Environmental and health and safety fines for large companies — the sky’s the limit
On 17 January 2014, the Court of Appeal considered the levels of fines imposed for radioactive waste and health and safety offences committed by large companies and introduced requirements on those offenders regarding the provision of financial and corporate information prior to sentencing.
The Court of Appeal heard two appeals jointly, due to the shared issues they raised — issues of principle on the levels of fines to be imposed for offences by large companies.
The first appeal, R v Sellafield Ltd, involved a number of offences committed by Sellafield in failing to separate radioactive waste from non-radioactive waste and dispose of the radioactive waste appropriately. Sellafield pleaded guilty and the Crown Court imposed a fine of £700,000. In its appeal, Sellafield argued that the fine was manifestly excessive because it had pleaded guilty and co-operated fully in the prosecution of offences where there had been no actual harm suffered and the risk of harm was low…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
Landlords must protect tenants’ deposits and provide tenants with prescribed information, regardless of when the tenancy commenced and when the deposit was received.
In the Yam Seng case, the court was willing to imply a duty of good faith to give business efficacy to a commercial contract. Since that case, the law has been somewhat uncertain.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.