in a name?”, had to review the case law
produced by the European Court on these
and similar matters and based thereon
produced a long argument which
1. “the dredged substance [from the
Prince’s Channel] is [not waste, but] a
product, or at least a by-product;
2. if, nevertheless [the interpretation of
the Waste Framework Directive would
conclude that] it is initially waste, then
It is fully recovered when it becomes
physically identifiable as a product (....)
once it is in the hopper of the dredger”.
The reader will notice that in the legal sense
it makes significant difference at which step
in the waste hierarchy one finds oneself.
Lord Kingsland draws the conclusion that,
once dredged material is targeted for re-use,
recycle or recovery, it is no longer waste, or it
has never been waste in the first place.
These conclusions are in fact based on a very strict reading of the definition (“Waste is any