header-logo header-logo

Justices order ‘speedy’ course in waste case

23 October 2024
Issue: 8091 / Categories: Legal News , Nuisance , Public , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

A judicial review regarding a waste disposal site can go ahead despite the fact the claimant could bring a nuisance claim instead, the Supreme Court has held

In Noeleen McAleenon, re application for judicial review (Northern Ireland) [2024] UKSC 31, the applicant complained about noxious odours from a waste site since 2018, causing her headaches, nausea and stomach problems, and forcing her to stay indoors with the windows shut. Other local residents have also complained.

McAleenon sought to bring judicial review proceedings against the relevant public bodies for not taking action to prevent the escaping smells. However, the public bodies argued she should be refused as she had adequate alternative remedies via a private prosecution of the owner or a private law nuisance claim.

Five justices unanimously granted her application. Lords Sales and Stephens said: ‘Judicial review is a comparatively speedy and simple process, involving significantly less time and cost than would be likely to be required for a trial in a private prosecution or in a civil claim in nuisance.’

Moreover, if a civil claim succeeded but the waste company was unable to pay, ‘Ms McAleenon would be left without recourse against anyone else.

‘It is not appropriate in a claim against a public authority for the authority to invite the court potentially to become embroiled in satellite issues involving an investigation into whether a third party might or might not be able to meet an order to pay damages made in different proceedings against it.

‘Nor is it appropriate for the authority to seek to avoid its own liability to pay compensation by pointing to the possibility that someone else might have a concurrent liability to pay damages, and on that basis contend that the claim against itself should be blocked so that it cannot be made subject to any order at all.’

Issue: 8091 / Categories: Legal News , Nuisance , Public , Judicial review
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
As he steps down as Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Julian Flaux reflects on over 40 years in law, citing independence, impartiality and integrity as guiding principles. In a special interview with Grania Langdon-Down for NLJ, Sir Julian highlights morale, mentorship and openness as key to a thriving judiciary
Dinsdale v Fowell is a High Court case entangling bigamy, intestacy and modern family structures, examined in this week's NLJ by Shivi Rajput of Stowe Family Law
back-to-top-scroll