Browse all documents

REX v MARSHALL & ANOTHER [1951] 2 All SA 440 (A)

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This fact sheet summarizes the 1951 legal case Rex v Marshall & Another, in which the manager and resident engineer of Natal Cambrian Collieries Ltd were convicted for allowing untreated acid mine drainage to escape into a stream, violating the Mines and Works Regulations of 1937.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The court established that mining authorities could be held criminally liable for the release of acid mine drainage as early as the 1950s, specifically regarding the contravention of Regulation 7(2) of the Mines and Works Regulations, 1937, which prohibited allowing water containing 'injurious matter' to escape without being 'rendered innocuous'.
  • The court rejected the defense's argument that Regulation 7(2) was void for vagueness, providing specific interpretations for key terms: 'injurious' water is that which is 'unfit for human or animal consumption, dangerous to animal life, and unsuitable for irrigation'; 'innocuous' is the opposite; and 'escape' occurs when water moves from a place where it causes no damage to a place where it does or is likely to do so, including movement within company property.
  • The court ruled that Regulation 7(2) was neither unreasonable nor ultra vires the empowering legislation (s 4(1) of Act 12 of 1911), concluding that 'injurious' matter falls within the scope of regulations concerning the 'safety and health of persons or property'. The court further noted that a 'satisfactory degree of innocuousness' was attainable.
  • Despite the lack of water analyses from the exact point of exit from the mine, the court found it established beyond reasonable doubt that the mine was the source of acidity, solids, and sulphuric oxide in the stream during July and August 1S4SS, citing common knowledge andSSSSSS and testimony from a former manager.

Cite the original document

APA
Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). REX v MARSHALL & ANOTHER [1951] 2 All SA 440 (A). https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Rex-v-Marshall.pdf?x21779
Chicago
Centre for Environmental Rights. REX v MARSHALL & ANOTHER [1951] 2 All SA 440 (A). n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Rex-v-Marshall.pdf?x21779.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=REX v MARSHALL & ANOTHER [1951] 2 All SA 440 (A) |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Rex-v-Marshall.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndrex, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{REX v MARSHALL \& ANOTHER [1951] 2 All SA 440 (A)}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Rex-v-Marshall.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated