Quarterly Comment by Trinity Chambers: Trinity Chambers, Newcastle.

This quarter has seen the government announce its 25-year plan to protect the environment, the enactment of new statutory instruments and stimulating case law. The political will to combat damage to the environment appears to exist. A much-anticipated 25-year plan was announced by Theresa May in January (Guardian, 11 January 2018). Mrs May announced that the government hopes to eliminate all 'avoidable' plastic waste within 25 years. It has been observed with some cynicism that legislation does not yet appear to be forthcoming on such lofty ambitions. The legislation itself will require careful planning, a targeted approach to the most wasteful areas of commerce and society, together with a pragmatic approach to eradicate 'avoidable' plastic waste. While some remain sceptical of the government's aspiration, it has been noted that the charge on plastic bags has been successful. The government will next seek to agree a charter for the Commonwealth aiming to reduce the amount of plastic waste in the oceans (The Guardian, 11 January 2018). The government has given new powers to tackle illegal activity at waste sites. The Waste Enforcement (England and Wales) Regulations 2018 enter into force soon. The waste regulation and collection authorities can require waste to be removed where it has been unlawfully kept or disposed of. It is important to note that this includes waste that was initially deposited lawfully. The Environment Agency and the Natural Resource Body for Wales may now give notice or seek an order of the court to restrict access and the importation of waste to particular premises. His Royal Highness Okpabi was unsuccessful in the Court of Appeal against Shell. In a case (reported below), the Nigerian claimants sought to appeal against a decision that Shell (as parent company) did not owe them a duty of care in respect of pollution and environmental damage caused by oil leaks from pipelines and associated infrastructure operated by a subsidiary. In the judgment given by Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Simon (Lord Justice Sales dissenting), the claimants were unable to demonstrate a properly arguable case that the parent company owed a duty of care to those affected. This judgment grapples with interesting legal issues concerning a company's duty of care and jurisdiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]