The High Court joined Holly Hunter’s husband as a notice party to environmental proceedings against Nurendale Limited, trading as Panda Waste, so he could potentially be liable for costs. It also ruled that the proceedings qualified for statutory environmental costs protection. The judgment did not decide the underlying planning or licensing disputes.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered the ruling on 17 September 2013, dealing with two preliminary applications. The main proceedings include a case under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, in which Hunter seeks orders to stop alleged unauthorised development at the company’s waste facility and restore the land. In separate judicial review proceedings, she seeks to quash an Environmental Protection Agency decision that amended the facility’s waste licence.
Hunter alleges that the facility, about 70 metres from her family home, has operated beyond permitted tonnages and hours and has caused nuisance. The dispute also concerns whether planning permission covered works including demolition and reconstruction of a shed. Those are claims in the underlying proceedings, not findings made in this ruling.
On the company’s application to join Richard Hunter, the judge said the evidence showed that Holly Hunter was unable to meet a possible costs order, while her husband owned the adjacent property and could benefit from successful proceedings. The judge also said complaints about the facility had in fact come from Mr Hunter and that Holly Hunter had been put forward to protect him from costs liability. He ordered that Richard Hunter be joined as a notice party for the purpose of possible costs liability if appropriate. The judgment does not impose a costs payment on him.
The second application was brought by Holly Hunter under section 7 of the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, seeking a determination that the Act’s section 3 costs regime applied. The judge considered the likely high cost of the proceedings, the case’s prospects at this preliminary stage, its importance to the applicant and environmental protection, and the complexity of the issues. He found the claim had a sufficient measure of substance for the costs application and rejected the company’s argument that allegations involving development without permission took the proceedings outside the regime.
The judge determined that section 3 applied and that Hunter was entitled to the protective costs order sought. Under the statutory regime, each party generally bears its own costs, subject to exceptions set out in the Act. The judgment also outlined information parties should provide when bringing or opposing similar applications in future.