In the main, trials of the majority of civil actions are without a jury and in the presence only of a judge. The case is opened by the plaintiff .who gives the evidence, and calls witnesses to the box. The proof required in such cases is not of such a high standard as in cases of a criminal nature.

Civil actions may be utilised upon someone experiencing damage or harm in some way, whom undertakes action against an individual or a group that has done this to them. In environmental law, a tort is usually the foundations upon which such an action is built. This will be where the plaintiff argues that there has been some sort of illegal interference of rights concerning a person's enjoyment or use of land. This is usually regarded as an act of nuisance. Nuisance has a wide definition to include physical interference with the land. Examples of this could be noise and air pollution. The complexities here are, however, defining what exactly is actionable and whether real damage has been caused. Statutory nuisance will be concentrated upon later in Unit 5.

It could be said that liability itself owes its origins to the ruling in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. This case led to the founding of a rule concerning any persons keeping or bringing anything onto the land that may cause harm upon it being released. In this case, land use must be of a non-natural nature- although defining a natural land use is a complex task. In a later case: plc [1994] 1 all ER 53 the plaintiffs brought an action in nuisance, negligence and liability (the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher).

Lord Goff in the House of Lords, pointed out that the judge in Rylands v. Fletcher (Blackburn J), had not created any new legal principle, but extended the scope of liability in nuisance to include isolated escapes. Considering the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher Lord Goff claimed damages for nuisance, negligence and liability.

The meaning of non-natural usage in the case of Cambridge Water was only broadly defined in the House of Lords. The Court agreed that in storing large amounts of chemicals on site made up a non-natural use of the land. What was also upheld was the fact that strict liability for the release of substances likely to do mischief was only prevalent where the defendant had knowledge of or could predict within reason that such a release would result in environmental damage. This therefore has implications in any rule concerning the matter of historical pollution, particularly in cases of contaminated land. The conclusion by the House of Lords upon looking at the rule within Rylands v. Fletcher is to refer to it as a component of the evolving law of nuisance as opposed to it being used as a separate development. Henceforth, where damage is caused by activities that are extremely hazardous, there is a rigid liability under the damage rule where the harm was predictable.

Civil cases may also be acted upon where the tort of negligence, trespass and liability (of the nature discussed above). The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was on which the tort of negligence was developed under the common law. Negligence can only be proved on specific evidence. Primarily, the plaintiff should have a duty of care. Liability can only be imposed here where there is a breach in the standard of care that normally arises from a lack of reasonable conduct. The damage resulting in such a case must derive from a breach in the duty of care and not from any other source. An illustration of this is in As environmental issues are dynamic in nature, it is not possible to provide a list that will remain stationary. This is due to the fact that environmental law is constantly introducing situations where fresh liabilities are created under EU law.

Negligence in environmental law is therefore, difficult to prove due to the fact that often the harm caused to the plaintiff is indirect. Negligence claims are also further compounded by the fact that there may be other issues such as contributory negligence by the plaintiff, which may lead to damages being subsequently lost.

When looking at remedies in civil environmental law cases, the outcome of action in civil cases may be that damages are rewarded for the loss or injunction. The central remedy for any loss is damages. Historical losses could be compensated by damages coupled with damages for losses in the future. Injunctions have their uses within the general sphere of environmental law. The utilisation of injunctions may be in nuisance abatement or in foreseeing any illegalities.

Another useful remedy is in the possible application for a declaration. This remedy serves to outline the legal position over the rights of the involved parties. A declaration can aid in making the law more coherent.

A citizen may also, as individuals, take action against environmental damage and harm, providing that this does not encompass breaching criminal law. Notice is often necessary prior to any action being taken also, such as entering land where a nuisance is under way.