Riley Foods Limited fined for pollution

1 Sept 2025News

Riley Foods Limited was fined £17,000 and must pay costs after polluting a nearby watercourse

Riley Foods Limited, a Burnley-based slaughterhouse, has been fined £17,000 and ordered to pay £34,365 in costs following a prosecution by the Environment Agency for illegally polluting a nearby watercourse with blood. The case began after a report on 23 February 2021 indicated that blood had entered a stream adjacent to the company’s premises at Dunnockshaw Farm.

Environment Agency officers attended the site the next day alongside representatives from United Utilities, confirming that the pollution did not stem from United Utilities’ sewer infrastructure but originated from a private drainage system at Riley Foods Limited. Evidence collected revealed that effluent, including blood, was entering the watercourse through a pipe linked to the company’s facility. Water quality testing indicated that the water was of the highest quality upstream of the discharge but had deteriorated to ‘bad’, the lowest classification, downstream, thus posing a significant threat to aquatic life.

In court, it was noted that Riley Foods Limited had a history of poor practices and non-compliance. The Environment Agency had previously sent two formal warning letters, and in 2019, United Utilities issued a site improvement plan due to serious concerns regarding drainage infrastructure and pollution risks. Despite these warnings and opportunities for improvement, incidents persisted.

Ultimately, the court determined that the company had acted deliberately in their disregard for the environment. In addition to the £17,000 fine, Riley Foods Limited was instructed to pay costs of £34,365 and a victim surcharge of £2000. An Environment Agency spokesperson remarked that the agency takes pollution incidents extremely seriously and highlighted that despite repeated advice and warnings, Riley Foods Limited failed to prevent unlawful discharges into the environment. The spokesperson concluded, “This sentence sends a clear message that businesses who disregard environmental law and put our waterways and wildlife at risk will be held accountable.”

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

UK to raise social media age limit

The UK plans to increase the minimum age for social media access to 16, following Australia's lead addressing online safety for children

SPP urges HMRC to reconsider pension tax

The Society of Pension Professionals has called on HMRC to address concerns over inheritance tax on pensions to avoid confusion for families affected by bereavement

Progress in cleaning up Companies House

A new report highlights ongoing improvements to the Companies House register aimed at tackling economic crime

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...