The High Court dismissed Geraldine and Colm Hanrahan’s action against waste management company Greyhound Recycling and Recovery over waste dumped at a former quarry on their lands in County Laois. Mr Justice David Keane found that Greyhound produced the waste, but also found that the Hanrahans knew of and authorised its disposal on the land in exchange for some payment, benefit or privilege.
The case was tried on liability only. Greyhound applied to have the proceedings dismissed after the Hanrahans closed their case and did not call evidence of its own. The judge assessed whether the plaintiffs had proved their entitlement to judgment on the balance of probabilities.
The dispute concerned a dump discovered by Laois County Council in April 2011. Council evidence in earlier proceedings put the waste at between 960 and 1,840 tonnes, with potential to generate leachate and pose a risk to groundwater. The Council had previously obtained orders requiring the Hanrahans and Colm Hanrahan Senior to remove the waste and remediate the site. Those orders were not carried out. The Supreme Court later set aside a committal order against Colm Hanrahan Junior and sent the committal application back to the High Court for further consideration.
At this trial, three haulage witnesses said they had transported loads from Greyhound’s Clondalkin facility to the farmyard. The judge accepted their evidence identifying Greyhound as the source, and drew an adverse inference from the absence of a Greyhound witness, Cormac Shields, whom the plaintiffs identified as having directed the deliveries. The judge also found that waste delivered to the farmyard was the same material later found in the quarry. He gave little weight to the delivery records, noting uncertainty about their authorship and dates.
However, the judge rejected Colm Hanrahan Junior’s account that the family had been unaware of the dumping. He found him an entirely unreliable witness and concluded that the Hanrahans knew of the large-scale operation and had authorised it. On that basis, the court held that the defence of illegality barred their private law claims, including claims in trespass, negligence, breach of duty and nuisance.
The court also ruled that the Hanrahans could not obtain relief under the Waste Management Act in this plenary action. The Act required an application by motion, and the judge found that the claims also sought to reopen issues already determined in the earlier Council proceedings. He dismissed all relief sought. The judgment did not order Greyhound to remove or remediate the waste, and did not award damages.