The Court of Appeal has set aside a €6.26 million fine and related asset restrictions imposed on Eileen Hendy and her son Fred Hendy in a dispute over two waste landfills on their farm in County Meath. It remitted the matter to the High Court for a different judge to reconsider remedies aimed at securing remediation.
The appeal concerned orders made in July 2020 after Meath County Council sought enforcement of earlier High Court orders under the Waste Management Act 1996. Those 2016 orders required the Hendys to stop unauthorised waste activity and take specified steps concerning the landfills. The Court of Appeal noted that the Hendys had not appealed those orders and that they remained binding.
A High Court declaration that both were in contempt for failing to comply was also not appealed. The Court of Appeal did not set that declaration aside. It reviewed the separate orders made after the declaration, including a €6.26 million fine imposed jointly and severally, a charge over the appellants’ assets, restrictions on dealing with property, and provisions concerning sale and remediation.
The Court of Appeal held that the fine was disproportionate and punitive in effect. It said the High Court had not separately assessed each appellant’s conduct, obligations and financial circumstances. The judgment noted that the affidavits of means before the High Court had not been challenged by the Council. It also identified problems with the asset orders, including their potential effect on a one-ninth share registered to the estate of the late Fred Hendy senior, who was not a party to the proceedings.
The court found that the July 2020 order did not clearly authorise the Council to enter the land or carry out remediation, while the restrictions imposed on the Hendys also obstructed their ability to deal with the property. It concluded that the combined effect of the orders was impermissibly expropriative and disproportionate. The court said it could not frame a suitable replacement order and sent the matter back to the High Court for a different judge to consider an appropriate remedy under the legislation.
The Court of Appeal rejected the Hendys’ claim that the parties had reached a binding settlement, finding that the evidence showed negotiations but did not establish a completed agreement. It also upheld the refusal to adjourn the July 2020 hearing. The appellants were not awarded their appeal costs; the court invited written submissions if either side sought a different costs order. It also urged the parties to consider mediation within 12 weeks.