Laois County Council v Hanrahan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MR. JUSTTCE HEDIGAN
• Judgment Date: 03 May 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 209
• Court: High Court
• Date: 03 May 2012

[2012] IEHC 209

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. 356 MCA/2011

Laois Co Council v Hanrahan

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 58 OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT 1996

Between:-

THE COUNTY COUNCIL FOR THE COUNTY OF LAOIS

Applicant

And

NOEL HANRAHAN, GERALDINE HANRAHAN & COLM HANRAHAN

Respondents

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT 1996 S58

1 NOTE OF JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTTCE HEDIGAN3rd MAY 2012.

2 In these proceedings the Applicant County Council seeks relief under Section 58 of the Waste Management Act, 1996 on foot of an originating Notice of Motion of the 23 ^rd November 2011 which requires the Respondents to discontinue holding waste at an old quarry at Kyle, Rathdowney, Co. Laois (which lands are comprised in Folio LS1905 Register of the County Laois), and also to mitigate and remedy the effects of holding the waste on the relevant lands (which is estimated to amount between 960 and 1,840 tonnes in volume). The first and second named Respondents are the owners of the relevant lands. The third named Respondent, their son, who had leased the property from them under a Lease of October 2007 has not put in a Replying Affidavit. The Lease of the lands allows for the first and second named Respondents to inspect the lands and to terminate the Lease in the event that there is a breach of covenant of the Lease. The Lease obliges the third named Respondent not to do anything which will cause damage to the environment and to return the land to the first and second named Respondents in pasture and that the lands are not to be sublet.The Affidavit of the first named Respondent states that the first and second named Respondents know nothing of the placing of waste on the land and that they have nothing to do with the lands since it was let to the third named Respondent. I consider this Affidavit to be evasive and self-serving. The first named Respondent's case that he knows nothing about the dumping appears improbable. The first named Respondent tries to make a case that he leased to his son and doesn't have any responsibility after that. I have had the benefit of Submissions from Mr. James Connolly S.C. to the effect that it is appropriate to apply a purposive interpretation of the Waste Management Act, 1996 (as amended) and I accept the authorities which have been invoked on this point. It is appropriate therefore that there should be a broad degree of flexibility when the...