The High Court ruled that Roche Ireland Limited had good title to topsoil and subsoil taken from adjacent lands at Clarecastle and incorporated into works at Roche’s premises. It declared that Roche could retain the material and had no liability to the defendants in respect of it, and dismissed their counterclaim.
The judgment, delivered by Miss Justice Laffoy on 14 December 2010, concerned soil removed while Milltown Engineering was carrying out preparatory work on lands owned by Roger O’Mahony, either alone, jointly with his wife or through Intrinsic Developments Limited. O’Mahony had allowed Milltown onto the site in connection with a proposed development. The judge found that Milltown severed the soil and had possession of it with O’Mahony’s consent.
Milltown sold soil to TAL Ltd, which used it in a landfill capping project at Roche, and to Martins Construction Ltd, which used it in landscaping there. O’Mahony disputed that he had consented to the material being taken off the lands. He and Intrinsic Developments claimed it had been removed without their knowledge or consent and sought its return or compensation. Roche maintained it had acquired and retained the material lawfully and without notice of any ownership claim.
Applying the Sale of Goods Act 1893, the judge found that TAL and Roche received the material in good faith and without notice of any lien or other right held by O’Mahony. She concluded that the Act’s section 25(2) gave Roche good title to the material incorporated into its premises. Any redress O’Mahony might have over Milltown’s failure to complete the land purchase or its sale of the soil would have to be pursued against Milltown, the judge said; that issue was not before the court in these proceedings.
The judge also found that Roche had not breached waste management legislation in connection with the material and that the Environmental Protection Agency had no issue with how the landfill capping was carried out. She noted that a Garda investigation had resulted in a file being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but said there was no evidence it concerned alleged criminal activity by Roche and no evidence of a prosecution against any party.
Roche had originally pleaded claims in several torts but did not seek damages at the hearing. The judge said it was therefore unnecessary to decide whether liability had been established for all or any of those torts. She found that written allegations that Roche had received and retained stolen goods would be untrue and malicious in the circumstances, and granted an injunction restraining written allegations of wrongdoing arising from the acquisition of the soil. The order covers Roche, associated companies, their officers and employees, and any third party. She declined a separate, broader injunction against repeating the allegations, describing it as vague and duplicative.