The High Court has ruled that Irish Water may charge for water supplied through the operator of Bettystown Caravan Park, but may not charge for disposing of the park’s domestic sewage under the legislation considered in this stage of a judicial review.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2014, Ms Justice Baker found that water reached the park’s 270 mobile-home units through a private network operated by the park. Although the units were used for domestic purposes, the supply was made to the operator rather than directly to individual homes. The arrangement did not qualify as a group water scheme, the judge held, so the statutory exemptions did not apply. Meath County Council had not acted beyond its powers by imposing water charges.
The applicants, Mark and Caroline McDonough, challenged charges levied against the park, which the first applicant managed. The units were individually owned and used as permanent or holiday homes; 110 people lived there permanently. The judgment records that residents were not charged separately for water or sewage disposal, while the park operator received council invoices. The park began relying on a private well for fresh water in December 2012 but continued using the public sewer.
The court also rejected Irish Water’s argument that the sewage lost its domestic character as it passed through pipes on the park before entering the public sewer. The wastewater was untreated and arose from ordinary domestic use. Because the statutory exemption for disposal of domestic sewage was not tied to where it originated or how it reached the public sewer, the council had no power to charge for its disposal in these circumstances. The judge said the result could differ if sewage were treated or otherwise managed before reaching the public system.
Baker J also ruled that the applicants were not out of time to seek judicial review of the disconnect notice issued in May 2013. She accepted that correspondence and an undertaking that water would not be disconnected contributed to their delay. She found the first applicant had sufficient interest to pursue the issues in this trial module.
The case proceeded as a modular trial. This judgment determined statutory interpretation and declaratory relief; the judge said a damages claim, essentially seeking a refund of payments made by the first applicant, could be heard later if appropriate. It did not determine that claim or award a refund.