Environmental due diligence

Due diligence is the process that allows a prospective buyer, tenant or funder and their professional advisers, to audit the target's affairs or investigate the property and use information obtained as a bargaining tool when negotiating deal terms.

‘Caveat emptor’, meaning ‘let the buyer beware’, is a common law principle meaning the seller is under no duty to disclose material facts to a prospective buyer. See Practice Note: Property—enquiries before contract .

Solicitors acting for the buyer, tenant or funder must therefore make their own searches, enquiries and inspections before entering into a contract, to find out the information it requires about the property or target. See Practice Notes: Property due diligence in corporate transactions and Due diligence—share and asset purchases.

The purpose of environmental due diligence

The purpose of environmental due diligence is to:

•
assess the risk of contaminated land liabilities
•
investigate other risks associated with land and buildings such as asbestos, fly-tipping, subsidence, Japanese knotweed, storage tanks and energy performance issues
•
identify any material non-compliance issues or threatened proceedings or claims associated with the property or target
•
highlight any capital expenditure

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Environment News

Environmental enforcement round-up—20 December 2024

A round-up of the latest environmental enforcement, including two men sentenced after operating an illegal waste site on their land and doing nothing to prevent it.

Defra publishes EPR guidance on recycling obligations and waste disposal fees

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has published new guidance on extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging. The guidance details new requirements for UK organisations that supply or import packaging, including collecting and reporting packaging data, fulfilling recycling obligations, and obtaining evidence of packaging waste recycling through Packaging Recycling Notes and Packaging Export Recycling Notes. It details the transition from the National Packaging Waste Database to the new Report Packaging Data service for managing these obligations. Additionally, the guidance introduces waste disposal fees for large organisations, set to begin in October 2025. Defra has also published updated illustrative base fees for the first year of EPR for packaging, refining previous estimates from August and September 2024, now providing single figure estimates instead of ranges. It has also published draft guidance explaining the methodology and procedure used to calculate estimated EPR payments for local authorities (LAs) for the 2025-26 period. Defra is seeking feedback on both the estimates and the guidance, with plans to publish an updated version in Spring 2025.

Commission bans Bisphenol A in food contact materials

The European Commission has adopted a ban on the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in food contact materials, citing potential harmful health impacts. The ban, which follows a positive vote by EU Member States and scrutiny by the Council and European Parliament, is based on the European Food Safety Authority's latest scientific assessment. It includes an 18-month phase-out period for most products and extends to other harmful bisphenols affecting reproductive and endocrine systems. The Commission states this measure aims to maintain high food safety standards and protect EU citizens from harmful chemicals in food and drink contact materials.

Shell wins dutch climate appeal but faces ongoing pressure to align CO2 reductions with human rights obligations

Environment analysis: This analysis provides details on the appeal of an important climate change case: Friends of the Earth Netherlands et al v Royal Dutch Shell plc, case number 200.302.332/01. The analysis explains why the original 2021 judgment ordering Royal Dutch Shell to reduce their emissions by 45% was overturned in the Hague Court of Appeal in November 2024. Despite, the appeal court ruling that Shell were not obliged to reduce their emissions as set out in the original judgment, they did affirm that there is broad consensus that the protection against the threats of climate change is considered a fundamental human right. Further important comments were also made and discussed in this analysis. Written by Noa Brawerman & Colleen Theron at Ardea International.