The High Court has refused to expand David Malone’s environmental enforcement proceedings over the former Ballinderry quarry to include a series of EU-law declarations, compensation claims and proposed references to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Mr Malone is pursuing proceedings against GCHL Ltd under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and section 57 of the Waste Management Act 1996. The case concerns the former Ballinderry quarry pit and alleged unauthorised development and environmental issues at the site.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley held that the planning and waste statutes already provide potentially effective enforcement remedies against GCHL Ltd, which is a private company rather than an emanation of the State.
The court therefore refused to add declarations alleging breaches of EU treaty obligations, failures to implement environmental directives and a damages claim framed by reference to EU law. It also declined to refer Mr Malone’s proposed questions to the CJEU.
The judge followed the reasoning adopted in a separate 2025 High Court case involving Mr Malone and a quarry in County Laois. In that case, similar EU-law claims against public bodies were found to fall outside the focused purpose of section 160 proceedings, which are designed to restrain or remedy unauthorised development.
The ruling does not dispose of Mr Malone’s underlying environmental case against GCHL Ltd. The substantive claims under the Planning and Development Act and Waste Management Act remain to be heard.
The court also noted that a separate High Court order made in July 2025, in proceedings brought by Kildare County Council, directed restoration of the Ballinderry quarry under an approved restoration plan over four years. The effect of that order on Mr Malone’s proceedings was left for the substantive hearing.
GCHL Ltd and Kildare County Council were directed to file responses within four weeks, followed by replies from Mr Malone and the Balyna Environmental Action Group. The judge’s provisional position was that there should be no order as to costs.