The High Court has ruled that a person convicted of an offence specified in section 34D of the Waste Management Act cannot be considered a “fit and proper person” for the purposes of granting or reviewing a waste collection permit. The ruling came in a consultative case stated and does not itself determine the permit holder’s pending appeal in the District Court.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley delivered the judgment on 16 February 2024. The case arose from Alan Pilkington’s statutory appeal against Offaly County Council, acting as the National Waste Collection Permit Office (NWCPO), after it refused to grant a reviewed permit and revoked his existing permit in June 2021. The office said a conviction meant he was not fit and proper to hold a permit.
The judgment records that Pilkington had been convicted under section 32(6)(a) of the Act and fined €750 plus costs. The underlying case involved soil and stones mistakenly delivered to a farmer by an employee. The material was later removed at Pilkington’s expense and taken to an authorised waste facility. The conviction was upheld by the Circuit Court in Trim in July 2019.
District Court Judge Colm Roberts referred three questions of law to the High Court. The parties disagreed over whether a conviction under section 34D automatically disqualified a person, and what powers the District Court would have on appeal if it did.
Mr Justice Bradley answered the first question yes: a person convicted of an offence prescribed by section 34D(1) is not a fit and proper person under the statutory and regulatory scheme. He found no basis to read into the legislation a discretion to disregard such a conviction. The judgment noted that similar disregard provisions had existed in regulations but were removed in 2016.
On the second question, the court said the District Court is obliged to confirm a decision to refuse a permit or its review, and to revoke an existing permit, where the decision rests on the relevant facts. The court qualified that answer: the District Court’s obligation does not apply if there was an error by the authority as to the relevant facts underlying its decision.
The High Court did not answer the third question about the authority’s discretion because its answers to the first two made that unnecessary. It directed that the matter be listed for mention on 28 February 2024 so the parties could address ancillary matters, including costs. The underlying statutory appeal remained pending before the District Court.