Bryson Recycling Limited’s Application

JurisdictionNorthern Ireland
JudgeTreacy J
Judgment Date23 January 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] NIQB 9
Date23 January 2014
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
Year2014
1
Neutral Citation No. [2014] NIQB 9 Ref: TRE9137
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 23/01/2014
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
Bryson Recycling Limited’s Application
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY BRYSON RECYCLING
LIMITED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND
IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION BY BANBRIDGE DISTRICT
COUNCIL
________
TREACY J
INDEX
PARA:
PAGE:
Introduction
[1] [2]
2
The Application for Judicial Review
[3]
3-4
Factual Background
[4] – [21]
4-9
General Overview of the New System
[22] – [33]
9-12
Legislative, Guidance and Policy Frameworks
[34] – [50]
12-19
The Council’s Sustainable Procurement
Policy
[51]
19
Susceptibility of Decision to Judicial Review
o Conclusion
[52] – [61]
[62] – [63]
19-23
Delay, Prejudice and Discretion
o Conclusion on Delay
[64] – [76]
[77] – 78]
23-26
Local Government (Best Value) Act (NI) 2002/
[79] – [103]
26-34
2
Consultation
PARA:
PAGE:
Remaining Grounds of Challenge
[104] – [111]
34-36
Role of Expert Evidence in Judicial Review
[112] – 117]
36-39
Scarva Road – the applicant’s submissions
[118] – [121]
39-40
Scarva Road – the Council’s submissions
[122] – [126]
40-42
The revised Waste Framework Directive and
the Waste Regulations (NI) 2011
[127] – [138]
43-45
Co-mingled collection
[139] – [142]
45-46
Alleged failure to consider the Sustainable
Procurement Policy
[143] – [146]
46
The views of interested parties
[147]
46-47
Taking into consideration relevant
information
[148] – [149]
47
TUPE Regulations
[150] – [152]
47-48
Bias and pre-determination
[153] – [158]
48-49
-------------------------------
Introduction
[1] By this application Bryson Recycling Limited (“the applicant”) seeks an
Order quashing the decision of Banbridge District Council (“the Council”) to
remodel its waste management services to adopt a system of co-mingled
collection of household dry recyclable material using a split bodied refuse
collection vehicle operated by the Council’s own staff and a decision not to
retender for the provision of collection of household dry recyclable material in
the Council area after the applicant’s contract for this service came to an end
(‘the impugned decision’).
[2] The applicant was represented by Mr Stuart Beattie QC and Mr Tony
McGleenan QC and the respondent was represented by Mr David Scoffield
QC. I am indebted to all Counsel for their comprehensive written and oral
submissions which have greatly assisted the Court.
3
The Application for Judicial Review
[3] The detailed grounds on which relief is sought are set out in the
Further Amended Statement filed pursuant to Order 53. In summary, the
grounds are that the Council:
(a) failed to comply with the provisions of the Local Government (Best
*Value) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’) in deciding not to
put the Council’s recycling services out to tender at the end of the
applicant’s contractual term in March 2012;
(b) failed to comply with the provisions of the 2002 Act in deciding to
adopt a system of comingled waste collection using a split-bodied
refuse collection vehicle (‘RCV’) operated by the Council’s own staff;
(c) failed to comply with the provisions of the 2002 Act in failing to
consult with interested parties before taking the impugned decision;
(d) acted irrationally and ultra vires in failing to comply with the 2002 Act
and other binding guidance, procedures and requirements when
procuring external consultancy services and in failing to comply with
the guidance in The Green Book, Northern Ireland Guide to Economic
Appraisal and Evaluation and Multi Criteria Analysis (“NIGEAE”);
(e) acted irrationally in relying upon the said economic appraisal which
did not comply with the terms of The Green Book including at:
(e)(x). Failed to conduct any analysis of the restrictions and
limitations imposed upon the Council’s waste disposal strategy by
the Waste Management licences currently held by the Council for
the Scarva Road civic amenity site;
(e)(xi). Failed, in breach of paragraph 2.5.15 of the NIGEAE, to
consider whether the Respondent would require to seek planning
permission to increase the scope for waste receipt or whether it
needed a revised waste management licence to address the increase
volume or needed to acquire new premises;

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Constable W's Application
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
    • May 24, 2019
    ...parties cannot simply disregard the time limit. The grounding affidavit should account for all periods of delay – see Bryson Recycling [2014] NIQB 9.” [114] In this case ACC Hamilton has failed specifically to account for the relevant periods of delay and there is no good reason apparent fr......
  • McAleenon's (Noeleen) Application
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
    • May 25, 2022
    ...was furnished to the court and relied on, at least in part, by the parties. I would echo the comments of Treacy J in Re Bryson Recycling [2014) NIQB 9, at paras [112] – [117] in relation to the use of such evidence in judicial review proceedings. The extent to which expert opinion evidence ......
  • Johnston (Peter) Application for Judicial Review (Leave Stage)
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
    • November 22, 2022
    ...date of the act complained of, not from the time the applicant is informed or becomes aware of it – cf. Treacy J in Re Bryson Recycling [2014] NIQB 9 at para [77]. The decision to close down the investigation in this case was taken in 2001. It is apparent therefore that the grounds for this......
  • Weir (Eddie) and Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists Application for Judicial Review
    • United Kingdom
    • January 18, 2023
    ...of opinion evidence. In Re McAleenon’s Application [2022] NIQB 39, I reiterated the principles set out by Treacy J in Re Bryson Recycling [2014] NIQB 9 in relation to the use of expert evidence in judicial review proceedings generally. To those statements of principle should be added that i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT