The claimants in the Judicial Review into co-mingled collections have released a statement saying that they will not be making an application to appeal the judge’s verdict in favour of the defendants.

The case, which was heard at High Court in Cardiff on 25-26 February, centred around Defra and the Welsh Government’s transposition of the European Commission’s (EC) revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD) into the Waste Regulations (England and Wales) 2011.

Not appealing is in the “best interests” of the industry

Despite having initially suggested that they might appeal the judge’s verdict, the claimants, six members of the Campaign for Real Recycling (CRR), have now released a statement saying that though they are “disappointed” in the outcome, they believe it is “in the best interests of the waste resources industry to draw a line under this matter”.

The statement reads: “Although CRR is disappointed in an outcome that does not fully address all the important issues raised, we feel it is now in the best interests of the secondary resources industry to draw a line under this matter. Consequently, we will not make an application to appeal this particular decision.

“Our overriding objective throughout this process has been to maximise the value the UK gets from its recovered resources. CRR maintains that this is best achieved through the separate collection of recyclables, where technically, environmentally and economically practicable (TEEP). However, we are pleased that the originally contested Waste Regulations were revised to better reflect this. In addition, we look forward to contributing to any future guidance that sets out criteria for this requirement of the regulations.”

The CRR added that although the issue of recyclate quality is now “much better understood by the UK’s secondary materials supply chain than when the Judicial Review was first sought”, the industry now has a “collective responsibility to ensure the public has confidence in what we do with the recyclable materials they provide”.

As part of the responsibility, CRR said it “will continue to assiduously engage with other stakeholders to ensure recyclate quality remains centre stage during the current consultation on the MRF Code of Practice, as well as the development of a Quality Action Plan”.

Background

The revised transposition – Defra and the Welsh Government’s second attempt of drafting the government’s Waste Regulations – came into force on 1 October 2012. It states that local authorities will need to run separate collections of dry recyclables by 2015 (as specified in the EC directive), but maintains that co-mingled collections are acceptable as long as separate collections are not technically, environmentally and economically practicable (TEEP) and as long as the right quality of recyclate is achieved.

The claimants in the case maintain that England and Wales’s permission of co-mingled collection systems could “permanently undermine the environmental and financial benefits of recycling” and brought the Judicial Review with the argument that the transposition was “contrary to both the wording and spirit of the rWFD and therefore not a transposition of it”.

However, after hearing representations from lawyers Tim Straker QC (on behalf of the claimants) and Clive Lewis QC (on behalf of Defra and the Welsh Government), Judge Hickinbottom ruled on 6 March in favour of the defendants, saying that “the obligation to set up separate collection of paper, metal, plastic and glass from 2015 is restricted by both the practicability and necessity requirements” and that “the claimants’ argument for a different interpretation could not be accepted on any conventional basis of reading”.

Read more about the Judicial Review into co-mingled collections.