The High Court ordered the respondents in a Meath County Council waste case to pay a €6.26 million coercive fine to fund remediation of contaminated land. The fine is charged on their assets, and the council may sell some or all of those assets to recover it, subject to conditions set by the court.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys made the order on 31 July 2020 and gave his reasons in a judgment delivered on 14 September. The council had brought the proceedings in 2015 under section 57 of the Waste Management Act 1996, seeking orders to stop the unauthorised holding, recovery and disposal of waste on lands registered as folio MH2659, along with remediation and other relief.
A final order made by Mr Justice Noonan in October 2016 required the respondents to discontinue those waste activities. The court said they had not complied. In the current contempt proceedings, the judge had already declared the respondents in contempt on 27 July 2020. The later hearing concerned the remaining relief, including the appropriate response to that contempt.
The respondents argued that the matter had been settled and sought more time to provide evidence. The judge said no evidence established a settlement, and refused an adjournment for further evidence, finding that the respondents had had repeated opportunities to comply or put forward a defence. Their counsel submitted that remediation might differ from what the 2016 order contemplated and raised property, liberty and fair-procedure rights. The judge said the 2016 order did not require the council to carry out a particular remediation plan and found no basis to delay the decision.
The judgment records that the lands comprise about 253 acres, with about three acres contaminated, and include the homes of both respondents. An affidavit put the cost of one remediation option at €6.26 million. The judge said the council’s priority was to get the work done and concluded that the respondents were unlikely to do so themselves. He ordered the fine to be paid to the council and charged on the respondents’ lands and other assets. The council may register the order as a charge and exercise a power of sale over assets.
The order protects the estate of the late Fred Hendy Snr., directing that one-ninth of proceeds from any sale of folio MH2659 be held by the council’s solicitor pending further court directions. Contaminated parts of the lands cannot be sold until the waste is removed. The court also restrained the respondents from dealing with their lands or property representing land-sale proceeds. If recovered funds exceed remediation costs, costs due to the council and interest, the council must return the surplus. The court granted liberty to apply about attaching further income or assets, and awarded the council the costs of the motion.
The judge described the fine as coercive, intended to ensure remediation rather than punish. He said the respondents could not be imprisoned for any unpaid balance after their assets were exhausted.