The High Court has ruled that special environmental costs provisions apply to a judicial review challenging Offaly County Council’s renewal of a national waste collection permit for Tag-A-Bin Limited. The ruling concerns costs in the proceedings; it does not decide whether the permit was lawfully granted or whether the alleged environmental damage occurred.
Mr Justice Baker delivered the judgment on 13 October 2017. The applicant, Fergus O’Connor, sought a declaration under section 7 of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. Offaly County Council opposed the application. Tag-A-Bin and Meath County Council were notice parties.
The underlying judicial review challenges Offaly’s decision of 31 March 2016 to renew Tag-A-Bin’s permit. O’Connor alleges that the council failed to apply statutory requirements when considering renewal, including requirements under the Waste Management (Collection Permit) Regulations 2007. He also alleges that waste was brought to and stored at an unauthorised facility, with risks of pollution. Those claims remain allegations in the underlying proceedings.
The court considered whether the review was, in substance, brought to ensure compliance with a statutory requirement, as required for the special costs regime. Baker J accepted that the primary relief sought was to quash the permit decision, and that the proceedings did not directly seek to enforce conditions in the existing permit. But she concluded that the challenge sought to ensure that a waste facility operated under a valid permit and that the permit was granted in accordance with statutory requirements. She found the threshold under section 4(1)(a) was met and was satisfied the case was not being pursued for a merely private or collateral purpose.
The judge also considered whether there was a sufficient link between the alleged failures and environmental damage. Affidavit material included photographs and allegations about waste deliveries and storage, run-off from skip cleaning, odours and waste sorting. A submission on the applicant’s behalf described alleged risks to groundwater and identified the distance to a nearby watercourse and the River Boyne conservation sites. Baker J held that this material established a prima facie case of existing environmental damage for the purpose of the section 7 application. She said the court’s role at this stage was not to resolve conflicts in the evidence.
The court also accepted the applicant’s account of financial difficulty, including that his riding school had closed and that he had limited means to fund the proceedings. Baker J declared that the special costs provisions in section 3 apply to the judicial review. The substantive challenge to the permit remained unresolved by this costs ruling.