The High Court has refused Hennessy Eco Limited’s application for judicial review of Cork County Council’s detention of waste trucks and their loads in April and May 2012.
The company argued that the Council exceeded its powers under the Waste Management Act 1996 and failed to explain its actions fairly. In a judgment delivered on 9 November 2016, Ms Justice Baker rejected the challenge and said she would refuse the relief sought.
The case concerned inspections on 30 April at Ahamilla, near Clonakilty, and on 2 May at Roskeen, near Mallow. Council officers said they suspected environmental pollution risks because of issues including mixed waste, missing or incomplete collection records and, in the first incident, missing vehicle logbooks or registration documents for end-of-life vehicles. The company did not submit evidence contradicting the officers’ accounts.
The truck stopped on 30 April was released the following day, but its contents remained at a waste facility. The truck involved on 2 May was directed to a civic amenity centre. The judgment said five of six end-of-life vehicles detained after the first incident remained unreleased; no logbooks or registration certificates had been produced. The court noted that the Council had offered release on production of documents showing ownership or the origin and possession of the waste.
Justice Baker held that the Council could use its statutory power to halt and detain vehicles for a purpose connected with the Act, provided it had a basis for believing the action would further environmental protection or prevent pollution. On the uncontradicted evidence, officers had formed that belief in both incidents. She also held that the Act allowed the Council to direct measures concerning waste, including its disposal or transfer to designated holding facilities, and to retain waste where the right to possession had not been established.
The court found that reasons had been given to the drivers and that the company knew why the vehicles and loads were stopped and retained. It left open the broader question of whether fair-procedure requirements apply to action under section 14, because it found that explanations had been provided in this case.
The judgment also rejected the Council’s argument that the company lacked standing. Although the company itself held no waste collection permit, the court accepted uncontradicted affidavit evidence that it operated a metal business and owned or operated the trucks and waste. The company was in creditors’ voluntary winding-up, but its liquidator had consented to the proceedings continuing.