The High Court has admitted two long-running cases concerning royalty payments from a Wicklow landfill to case management and directed that they be heard by the same judge, with the Greenstar proceedings first.
In a judgment delivered on 20 November 2024, Mr Justice Conor Dignam also stayed the hearing of the professional negligence proceedings until the Greenstar case is determined or the court makes a further order. The negligence case is to be advanced to trial readiness, but not listed for trial in the meantime.
Michael Noble’s Greenstar proceedings seek to enforce rights under option agreements made in 2000 concerning lands at Ballynagran, County Wicklow. The agreements provided for royalty payments linked to landfill income and an option for Noble to buy the lands back after the landfill’s aftercare period. The defendants dispute the claim. The judgment records that Greenstar Properties transferred the lands to Ballynagran Landfill Limited in 2014; Greenstar Properties was later dissolved.
Noble’s separate claim against Matheson solicitors alleges professional negligence in connection with the agreements and the 2005 sale of the lands. The Court of Appeal previously held that claims arising from the 2005 retainer were statute-barred, while a claim arising from the 2000 retainer was not. The High Court’s ruling concerned case management and directions, not the merits of either claim.
The judge declined to order the two cases to be tried consecutively without first deciding the Greenstar case, saying that could require an unnecessary trial of up to eight days if Noble succeeded against Ballynagran. He also rejected Matheson’s request to stay further steps in the negligence case: leaving preparation until after the Greenstar decision could cause further delay if the second case were then needed.
For the Greenstar case, the court permitted inspection of the lands by an expert engaged by Noble and directed Ballynagran to provide figures for receipts and outgoings, as defined in the option agreement’s schedule, for each year since 2014. It did not order Ballynagran to disclose the identities of its three largest customers, finding that disclosure disproportionate at this stage. Nor did it order disclosure of the names of employees listed in a redacted schedule to the asset sale agreement, finding no proper basis for that request in the pleadings.
In the negligence case, environmental experts are to engage before the parties’ financial loss experts. Legal experts may engage separately. The judgment states that the parties may agree a schedule for the court order, with any disagreement to be resolved by the court.