The Supreme Court has ruled that a person can qualify as a “manager” under section 9(1) of the Waste Management Act 1996 without being responsible for the whole affairs of a company. The court said the person’s real authority and responsibility for the area connected to the alleged offence must be assessed in the context of the company’s structure and activities.
The ruling came on a prosecution appeal concerning T.N., who was acquitted by direction at the end of a 12-day trial in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in October 2015. He faced nine charges linked to alleged odour nuisance and waste accumulation at a facility in Kerdiffstown, County Kildare. The charges alleged breaches of waste legislation and licence conditions; they were not findings of guilt.
The prosecution’s case was that T.N. managed, or purported to manage, Neiphin Trading Limited’s licensed waste facility. The judgment records evidence that he was identified to the Environmental Protection Agency as facility manager, appeared at the top of management charts in annual reports and corresponded with the agency on the facility’s behalf. T.N. argued at trial that he was a consultant, not a manager or officer of Neiphin. The trial judge found that the evidence did not establish the qualifying role required by section 9(1) and directed acquittals on all charges.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had applied the wrong legal test, quashed the acquittal and ordered a retrial. T.N. appealed to the Supreme Court, which considered the meaning of “manager” under section 9(1). It rejected a narrow test requiring responsibility for the company’s affairs as a whole, explaining that modern companies may delegate significant authority over particular activities. A person’s title is relevant but not decisive; the court must examine the person’s practical role, authority to make relevant decisions and responsibility for policies or procedures in the area at issue.
The Supreme Court agreed that the trial judge had erred in law. It did not, however, decide whether the trial evidence could allow a jury reasonably to find T.N. guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Nor did it decide whether a retrial should take place. It left those questions open for further submissions and deferred making a final order. The judgment therefore resolves the interpretation issue but does not determine the charges or the next procedural outcome.