The High Court refused two declarations sought by engineer Michael Duffy in a judicial review over wastewater authorisations for Liscannor and Kilfenora, finding that the Environmental Protection Agency had not failed to act in the way alleged and that the court could not grant the relief sought.
In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2014, Ms Justice Baker said the court was deciding the case on its merits. She did not accept that Mr Duffy had brought it within the required time.
Mr Duffy argued that the EPA should have reviewed a wastewater discharge licence for Liscannor by 22 December 2012, setting emission limit values. The licence had been granted to Clare County Council in October 2011.
The judge rejected that claim. She found that the review deadline in Article 11 of the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations 2009 applied to authorisations already in place when the regulations came into force on 30 July 2009. The Liscannor licence was issued later, so it was a new authorisation and did not fall within that review requirement.
The second declaration concerned a discharge certificate application for Kilfenora, submitted by Clare County Council in December 2009 and still awaiting a decision from the EPA. Mr Duffy alleged that the EPA’s delay meant there was no authorisation with appropriate emission limits, and that the delay was unlawful.
The judgment records that the EPA had sought further information from the council. The council had acknowledged in a June 2012 letter that a review by a hydro-geologist found an unacceptable level of discharge from the Kilfenora wastewater plant. The judge said the EPA had engaged with the council and found, on the evidence before her, no failure by the agency to act.
She also said the court could not take on enforcement functions assigned by law to public authorities. Mr Duffy had not sought mandatory relief, and an order requiring the EPA to decide the council’s application was unavailable in circumstances where the council was not joined and the evidence suggested it might have failed to engage fully with the process.
The judgment referred to an earlier judicial review by Mr Duffy, rejected by the High Court in 2013, and said the current case could not reopen matters already decided. The court refused both declarations. It did not order the EPA to issue an authorisation or set a timetable for deciding the pending application.