The High Court has rejected applications by Brownfield Restoration Ireland Limited and Dean Waste to halt a Wicklow County Council case over alleged illegal waste dumping at Whitestown quarry, Co Wicklow. Mr Justice O’Keeffe found that the Council had neglected to make proper discovery and that the defendants were likely to suffer prejudice, but concluded they could still receive a fair trial.
The applications sought a declaration that the trial to date was a mistrial or, alternatively, dismissal of the Council’s claim for failure to comply with discovery orders. The judgment dealt with those applications during an ongoing hearing; it did not determine the Council’s underlying claims or the defendants’ defences.
The Council’s case seeks relief under section 58 of the Waste Management Act, alleging that defendants held or disposed of waste in a way that caused environmental pollution. The Council’s opening account said unauthorised dumping was discovered at Whitestown quarry in November 2001. Brownfield and Dean Waste disputed aspects of the claim. Dean Waste accepted that it had deposited some material but said it was a small quantity of inert construction and demolition waste that did not cause pollution. The judgment records the parties’ positions; it makes no finding on liability for dumping or pollution.
The discovery dispute concerned documents that emerged after the trial began, including a 5 April 2002 letter about a proposed remediation company, statements by Council employees to gardaí, electronic records and senior officials’ diaries. The judge found that the 2007 discovery order covered documents about dumping but did not extend to remediation generally. However, he concluded that Donal O’Laoire, the Council’s authorised person under the legislation, had acted as its agent in that role and that the Council had an enforceable right to obtain relevant documents from him.
The judge concluded that the Council neglected to make proper discovery. He found the failure was not wilful and there was no concerted plan among senior officials to withhold documents. He also recognised the Council’s cooperation and reasonable efforts to comply with later discovery orders.
The defendants were likely to be disadvantaged, the judge said, because their lawyers needed to assess the large volume of later-produced documents and reconsider cross-examination of Council witnesses. He was nevertheless confident they could do so without losing the prospect of a fair trial. He found no legal basis to declare a mistrial and directed that the trial could continue, subject to hearing the parties on any consequential orders and requiring an updated affidavit confirming full discovery.
The Council was ordered to bear 60% of the costs of the application for each defendant, treated as one motion. The judge expressly stated that the ruling did not determine witness credibility or the substantive case, and did not decide the consequences of the transcript circulation and discussions between witnesses, which had been raised as further grounds for a mistrial.