Environmental Protection Agency v Midland Scrap Meatal Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Mac Eochaidh |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 17 |
| Docket Number | [No. 1438 SS/2013] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 16 January 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 17
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
Environment, transport & planning – Environment – Waste management – Waste facility – Licence for facility –Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2008
Facts: The appellant had been convicted in the District Court of an offence concerning the processing of waste at a facility without the appropriate licence to do so. The appellant now sought to appeal on the basis a licence was granted to another person for the same facility in question, and that licence sufficed as a defence to the charge against it.
Mac Eochaidh J stated that s 40 of the Waste Management Act 1996 identified factors to consider for the grant of a waste licence. These factors were personal to the applicant. Having taken submissions from the parties, the Court was satisfied that the legislative intent was that only those parties who had been licenced could dispose of the types of waste in question. The District Court”s decision would be affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
This is an appeal by way of case stated from Judge John O'Neill of the District Court pursuant to s. 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 as extended by s. 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act1961.
At a sitting of the District Court on 10th October 2012 Midland Scrap Metal Company Limited appeared to answer a summons on which it was charged with an offence contrary to Sections 39(1) and 39(9) of the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2008 of disposing of or undertaking the recovery of waste at a facility other than in accordance with a waste licence granted under the said Act. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge O'Neill in convicting the accused, was satisfied as to the following: "(a) of the facts alleged in the summons…(b) that the activity engaged in by the accused at the facility required a waste licence issued under the Waste Management Acts 1996-2008, and (c) that the accused did not hold such a licence at the material times."
The opinion of the High Court is sought as to whether the District Court was "correct in law in holding that a licence issued under the Waste Management Acts1996-2008 to a person other than the accused in respect of the same facility was personal to that other person and did not amount to a defence available to the accused to the offence charged in the summons."
The background facts as found by the District Court are as follows:
a "(a) A licence (register reference no. W0079-01) was issued to a limited liability company by the prosecutor in its capacity as a licensing authority on the 24th January 2000 for the processing of certain wastes at 41 Cookstown Industrial Estate, Tallaght, in the County of the City of Dublin (hereinafter referred to as "the facility"). That licence was transferred in accordance with law to Greenstar Materials Recovery Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Greenstar") on the 10th September 2004. Greenstar continued to hold the said licence at all material times and, in particular, throughout the period specified in the summons.
(b) The waste activities carried on at the facility by Greenstar in accordance with the licence ceased in 2006. An application was made by Greenstar to the prosecutor to surrender the licence in accordance with the statutory procedure in 2006. That application was not pursued and Greenstar remained at all material times the licensee entitled to conduct certain waste activities at the facility in accordance with the said licence.
(c) No waste activities occurred at the facility between the cessation of activity by Greenstar in 2006 and late 2008.
(d) In 2008 the accused entered into occupation of the facility and commenced waste activities. The waste activities conducted by the accused differ from those which were conducted at the premises by Greenstar. The activities carried out by Greenstar included the indoor sorting and transfer of construction and demolition waste and commercial and industrial waste; the accused handles metal waste only and its activities include outdoor processing. The waste activities conducted by the accused involve the sorting, shearing, baling and slicing of metal waste.
(e) The metal waste handled by the accused at the facility during the period specified in the summons consisted of assorted scrap metal, as appears from photographs proved before me in evidence. Copies of some of those photographs, which are illustrative of the waste handled at the facility by the accused and which form part of the case stated, are attached in annex 2.
(f) The waste activities carried on at the facility by the accused generate noise, dust and vibrations and adversely affect the enjoyment of neighbouring commercial premises by their occupiers.
(g) Prior to commencing waste activities at the facility, the accused brought new plant and equipment, different from that previously used by Greenstar, into the facility and erected a sign with its name and contact details on it at the entrance to the facility.
(h) During the period specified in the summons, the facility was visited by inspectors on behalf of the prosecutor. On those occasions, the accused was engaged in the disposal or recovery of waste at the premises.
(i) During the period specified in the summons, Greenstar continued to hold a waste licence for the facility. Greenstar accepted its responsibility, as licence holder, for the conduct of waste activities at the facility during the period specified in the summons.
(j) Greenstar appeared before me to answer a complaint, the subject matter of a summons served upon it, alleging the disposal of waste at the facility in breach of conditions of the waste licence during the period when the accused was engaged in waste activities at the facility. On the 16th April 2012, Greenstar entered a plea of guilty to the offence alleged in that summons. A copy of the summons, which forms part of this case stated, is attached at annex 3. Greenstar was convicted and fined accordingly.
(k) Prior to the issue of the summons, the agency did not notify the accused that it was not entitled to operate a waste activity at the premises.
(l) The accused counts among its directors one Con Ward, who gave evidence before me, who has decades of experience in the metal waste business. The accused has engaged in waste activities in relation to metal waste elsewhere in the country at facilities in respect of which it holds or has held a permit issued to it by a local authority for such waste activities. The accused has also submitted an application to a local authority for a further waste permit in relation to metal waste.
(m) Throughout the period specified in the summons, during which it was engaged in the processing of metal waste at the facility, the accused did not hold a licence to engage in such activity at the facility."
5. The matter first came before this court on 28th July 2014 for hearing of a motion brought by the accused pursuant to s. 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 to have the case stated sent back to the District Court Judge for amendment or restatement. On that occasion the appellant claimed that the case stated by Judge John O'Neill did not adequately reflect what had occurred in the District Court. In that regard it was claimed that there was confusion as to the state of the facts as found by the District Court Judge and complaint was also raised that the case stated to the High Court was, in its entirety, the version contended for by the prosecutor. The motion was refused and the costs were awarded to the respondent.
6. The matter came on for full hearing on 15th December 2014. Counsel for the accused/appellant, Mr. Oisin Collins B.L. submitted that the net issue in the case was whether whether a waste licence is personal to the licensee, meaning that only the licensee can carry out the activities identified in the licence. He submitted that the waste licence regulates the activities identified therein. Consequently, his client, he says, committed no wrong by carrying out the activities identified in the licence because the respondent had permitted such activities to be carried out when it issued the licence.
7. Counsel notes that it is accepted that Greenstar held a licence in respect of the facility owned by them in Tallaght and further that the accused was purporting to operate under the said licence. In this regard, it is said that Greenstar remained the licensee and the licence was not transferred. As such, Greenstar was obliged to comply with the licence conditions and was liable for any breaches of the terms of the licence. It is stated that the appellant operated the facility by way of (private) licence from Greenstar and under Greenstar's waste licence.
8. Further, it is said to be relevant that Greenstar was prosecuted for carrying out waste activities other than in accordance with conditions of the licence, pleaded guilty to this offence and was convicted and fined. It is submitted that this conviction constitutes a recognition that the activities being carried out on the site were being carried out under the licence. In this regard it is contended that the conviction presumed that the activities were being carried out under the licence itself, albeit not in compliance with the conditions. It is submitted that in order for the conditions of the licence to have application to the activity, the licence itself must have application and as such it could not be argued by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Environmental Protection Agency v Midlands Scrap Metal Company Ltd
...of MacEochaidh J. in the High Court delivered on 3rd March 2015: see Midland Scrap Metal Co. Ltd. v. Environmental Protection Agency [2015] IEHC 17. The decision of MacEochaidh J. was delivered in an appeal by way of a case stated from a decision of Judge John O'Neill of the District Court ......