In Richards v Environment Agency [2025] EWHC 1269, the High Court is reviewing the lawfulness of the Environment Agency’s regulation of hydrogen sulphide (H₂S) emissions from Walleys Quarry landfill site in Silverdale, Staffordshire. The case arises from a judicial review brought by Rebecca Currie, the mother of a young boy with chronic respiratory illness, who claims that prolonged exposure to emissions from the site has caused serious and ongoing harm to her son's health.
The claimant argues that the Environment Agency breached its positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life) by failing to take adequate regulatory action to protect her son from toxic gas exposure. Medical evidence submitted with the claim alleges that the child’s exposure to H₂S has exacerbated his underlying health conditions and is likely to reduce his life expectancy.
The claim further asserts that the Environment Agency acted irrationally by continuing to permit operations and emissions at the site without sufficient monitoring or enforcement action, particularly following the landfill operator’s liquidation in early 2025. It also alleges that the Agency failed to provide transparent, accurate, and timely public information about the risks posed by the site, undermining the community’s ability to respond and protect vulnerable individuals.
At the permission hearing, the High Court accepted that the issues raised were both legally and factually complex and carried significant weight in terms of public health and human rights. The court found that the claimant’s case was arguable on multiple grounds, particularly concerning whether the Agency’s response to the pollution risk met the threshold required by human rights law. The judge also noted that this case engages novel legal territory concerning regulators’ obligations to prevent environmental harm in the context of vulnerable individuals with known health risks.
The Environment Agency has denied wrongdoing, arguing that it has acted within the scope of its statutory duties, responded to public complaints, monitored emissions levels, and imposed appropriate enforcement measures where necessary. Nevertheless, the High Court granted permission for a full judicial review on 23 May 2025, recognising the arguability of the claims and the significant public interest in the health and human rights issues raised.
This case is noteworthy because it tests the boundaries of environmental regulators’ accountability under the Human Rights Act 1998 and explores how domestic environmental failures may engage Convention rights. If successful, the claim could establish a precedent for holding public bodies legally responsible for environmental harm that disproportionately affects vulnerable individuals or communities. It may also encourage stronger regulatory interventions in situations where health impacts from pollution are foreseeable but not adequately addressed through existing frameworks.
