header-logo header-logo

18 January 2007 / Dominic Thomas
Issue: 7256 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Environmental impact

Dominic Thomas explains why the demand for environmental insurance is on the increase

On 30 April 2007, the government is committed to implementing Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. The Directive is based upon the ‘polluter pays’ principle, whereby polluters bear the cost of remediating the damage they cause to the environment, or the cost of measures to prevent imminent threat of damage. Crucially, the proposed Directive does not cover economic losses resulting from the damage, such as personal injury or property damage.

Controversial consultation

The Directive has been controversial from the outset. Its original wording obliged the European Commission (the Commission) to submit proposals for a harmonised compulsory financial guarantee for water and soil damage. However, concerns over cost implications meant that the requirement was dropped, but the issue is to be revisited in 2010 and is likely to be introduced eventually.

Even without compulsory guarantees, the consultation process for the Directive proved divisive. The green lobby, for instance, was critical that the proposed Directive

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll