[ad_1]
A High Court judge has fined a mother and her son € 6.26 million, to be paid to the Meath County Council, in contempt of court orders forcing them to clean up two illegal landfills on their farm in Enfield. .
pa 100,000 tons of waste, including asbestos, was dumped into two unauthorized areas comprising three acres on Farm 253 over a three-year period through October 2014. The farm, in Ballynakill, Rathcor, Enfield, is owned by Eileen Hendy and run by his son, Fred.
In a ruling released Monday, Judge Richard Humphreys said that the Hendys had passed three years since another Superior Court judge ordered them to take action to clean up the sites, which had been found last July in contempt of that order and not were entitled to more time to comply.
The most appropriate option, and the one sought by the city council, was for the court to fine the Hendys 6.26 million euros for remediation costs, which would be charged for the land, he said.
The fact that the remediation costs are likely to exceed your means is “irrelevant,” he said. While his lawyer had argued that a fine would infringe on his property rights and other rights, those rights were subordinate to the requirement to comply with court orders that they had not made.
The fine is “coercive,” not punitive, as it was not intended to punish them for their three-year contempt, but rather to ensure that redress occurs, he said.
Needless to say, they cannot be jailed for failing to pay the balance of the fine once their assets have been depleted, he added.
In 2016, the Council had obtained orders from then-High Court Judge Seamus Noonan against the Hendys in order to secure the remediation of the landfills in accordance with the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency and also required the Hendys to pay costs, not quantified then, for that remediation.
The court was told in 2016 that the cost of dealing with the waste was estimated to be around € 2 million if the sites were covered up and left in place and that it would be around € 6 million if the waste were removed and treated. at a licensed facility.
Mrs. Hendy lives with her daughter in a house on the lands, while Fred and his family lived in another house nearby.
During the 2016 hearing, Hendy said that she cultivates the land and that neither her mother nor her sister had any role in the waste activities.
The Council stated that the diaries Mr. Hendy kept indicated that he was paid around 175,000 euros over two years between 2011 and 2012 to collect waste at rates considerably lower than those he would have had to pay at authorized landfills.
The Council had also brought proceedings against a waste company and several carriers, but the claims against those parties were rejected after Judge Noonan raised questions about the adequacy of the evidence against those parties.
In 2019, the Council initiated contempt proceedings against the Hendys and Judge Humprey, in a hearing last July, both of whom were found in contempt.
Based on that finding, he considered more submissions and passed judgment on them on Monday.
It found the Hendys did not have a valid legal complaint about the council’s procedure with the contempt matter.
The main concern of the city council is that the lands be rehabilitated and, despite the Hendys’ arguments, they have tried alternative solutions, have done nothing effective for a period of three years and it would be “foolish” to give them a new one. chance to start doing something now, he said.
That meant that the Council itself had to remediate the lands and had to draw on the defendants’ assets to do so.
Agricultural land is 253 acres, of which three acres are contaminated, he noted. That meant that a large amount of land was available for sale. Eileen Hendy had eight ninths of them, a ninth was in the hands of her late husband’s estate, and the land includes the homes of both respondents, she noted.
An affidavit of resources on behalf of the Hendys referred to land worth 665,000 euros, but which was questioned by the council and there may need to be a cross-examination, he said. The affidavit also said there are no mortgages or charges on the land.
Online editors
[ad_2]