John Drennan and Sharon Drennan v Ian Walsh
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McBride J |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NICh 6 |
| Date | 28 April 2023 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NICh 6
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McB12062
ICOS No: 2018/8829
Delivered: 28/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
CHANCERY DIVISION
___________
Between:
JOHN DRENNAN and SHARON DRENNAN
Plaintiffs
and
IAN WALSH
Defendant
___________
The Defendant appeared as a Litigant in Person
Mr Keith Gibson (instructed by Peter Dornan and Co, Solicitors) for the Plaintiffs
___________
McBRIDE J
Introduction
[1] The plaintiffs claim damages together with injunctive relief in respect of
alleged trespass and nuisance by the defendant in and about his quarrying
operations at Fishquarter Quarry, Kircubbin, County Down.
[2] The plaintiffs are married and are the joint owners of a residential property at
3 Coulter’s Hill, Newtownards, which is their principal residence. The plaintiffs
purchased the property as a building site in or around 2001. The present property,
which is a substantial detached 2 storey, 6 bedroomed house with a two-storey
garage, was built on the site and the plaintiffs have resided in this property from
2002 to date. In or around 2016 the defendant began to operate Fishquarter Quarry
which had been disused for approximately 30 years. During the time it had been
disused the quarry had been partially filled with water and aerial photographs show
what appeared to be a lake at the site. The water has now been drained leaving a
solid rock floor with near vertical walls approximately 14 meters high. The
plaintiff’s property is approximately 75 meters from the quarry face although the
amenity space at the front of the dwelling is much closer. There is a roadway
leading to the quarry which is routed immediately in front of the plaintiff’s house
2
and quarry traffic use this roadway to access the quarry. Land surrounding the
quarry is agricultural.
[3] The plaintiffs have previously challenged the operation of the quarry through
representations to the local council and to the planning authorities and through legal
proceedings. These endeavours have failed to lead to the quarry ceasing its activities
as it emerged that planning permission had been granted on 19 May 1967 for “use of
land for quarrying purposes at Fishquarter, Kircubbin” and this remained in place.
No conditions or restrictions were attached to this planning permission.
[4] The defendant is the owner of the lands in which the quarry is situated. He is
also the operator of the quarry.
[5] The plaintiffs complain about physical damage being caused to their property
by reason of a quarry blast and, further, complain about ongoing noise and dust
nuisance caused by the quarry operations. The plaintiffs now seek private law
remedies in respect of the activities carried out by the defendant at the quarry
insofar as those activities constitute a nuisance.
[6] The plaintiffs issued proceedings on 26 January 2018 and later sought an
interlocutory injunction to restrain certain activities by the defendant in respect of
his quarrying business. That application proceeded to trial, and I delivered a written
judgment on 21 March 2018 [2018] NICh 3. Although I refused the application, I
required certain undertakings to be given by the defendant and directed that those
undertakings should remain in place until the trial date. The undertakings were in
line with some of the recommendations made by Grainger Acoustics, sound and
noise analysts, in their report dated 3 May 2018. The defendant agreed not to carry
out any further blasting operations at the quarry save a blasting operation on
23 March 2018 which was to be carried out in accordance with a number of strict
conditions. The defendant further gave an undertaking to operate the quarry only
between the hours of 07:00hrs and 17:00hrs Monday to Friday and 0700hrs to
1400hrs on Saturdays save for returning lorries and the defendant agreed to use his
best endeavours to ensure lorries returned before 1830hrs Monday to Friday and
before 15:30hrs on Saturdays.
[7] After the interlocutory application the matter was pleaded out and the trial
commenced on 13 January 2020. The plaintiffs were represented by Mr Keith Gibson
of counsel. The defendant appeared as a litigant in person, although he had the
assistance of a McKenzie Friend, Mr Connolly. After three days of evidence there
was a suggestion that the parties would mediate. The matter was listed to resume
on 27 January 2020. On 27 January 2020 Mr Walsh when asked if he wanted to give
evidence refused to do so on the basis that his brother was seriously ill in hospital
due to a rat bite, and as a result, he was in no fit state to give evidence. Thereafter,
Mr Walsh indicated that he wished to instruct counsel to act on his behalf and the
case was adjourned to facilitate this. Covid then intervened meaning that the matter
did not reappear in the list until March 2021. When the case was relisted Mr Dunlop
To continue reading
Request your trial