The High Court has made no order on Meath County Council’s existing motion seeking attachment and committal of two respondents over an illegal waste dump at Ballynakill, Co Meath. It gave the council liberty to bring a further motion with specific enforcement requests.
In a judgment delivered on 3 March 2020, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the new motion must identify, paragraph by paragraph, what conduct or failure by each respondent is alleged to amount to contempt. The judge also directed both respondents to file affidavits of means and allowed them to submit other evidence in their defence.
The case concerns an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 tonnes of waste deposited on land owned by Eileen Hendy and farmed by Fred Hendy, according to the judgment. The council’s assessment identified mixed waste, including household, commercial, construction and demolition waste, and hazardous waste including broken asbestos. The council had estimated that removal could cost €6.14 million or possibly less, depending on the amount of hazardous waste present.
A final order made in October 2016 required the respondents to stop holding, recovering and disposing of waste at the site and to carry out remediation. The judge recorded that they had not complied with those requirements. He also said the council had not submitted bills for landfill management costs, so no contempt arose under that part of the earlier order. The respondents accepted they had not complied with the order, but disputed that this should be called contempt.
The respondents argued that compliance was impossible because Fred Hendy was in custody, Eileen Hendy was elderly and had not run the operation, and they lacked the money to remediate. The judge said they had not provided appropriate evidence to support their claim of poverty. He also rejected an attempt to revisit the merits of the original order at the enforcement stage.
The council can seek a declaration of contempt, specific attachment or committal orders, alternative financial or other enforcement orders, and a court assessment of investigation costs supported by evidence. The judge said any financial remedy should be specifically put forward by the council. He retained seisin, listed the case for an early mention, and directed that the matter return for a substantive hearing. He also directed attendance by Eileen Hendy and, if not in custody, Fred Hendy. No contempt finding or committal order was made in this judgment.