McAleenon's (Noeleen) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Humphreys J |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NIQB 39 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 25 May 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NIQB 39
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: HUM11850
Delivered: 25/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
___________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY NOELEEN McALEENON
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
___________
Hugh Southey QC and Sarah Minford (instructed by Phoenix Law) for the Applicant
Gordon Anthony (instructed by Arthur Cox) for the first Respondent
Tony McGleenan QC and Maria Mulholland (instructed by the Departmental Solicitor’s
Office) for the second and third Respondents
Stewart Beattie QC and Simon Turbitt (instructed by Carson McDowell) for the first
Notice Party
Denise Kiley (instructed by Belfast City Council Legal Services Department) for the
second Notice Party
___________
HUMPHREYS J
Introduction
[1] Alpha Resource Management Limited (‘Alpha’), the first notice party to these
proceedings, owns and operates a landfill site at Mullaghglass near Lisburn in
Co Antrim (‘the site’). The applicant for judicial review resides in the Milltown
estate, close to the site, within the Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council (‘LCCC’)
district.
[2] In these proceedings, the applicant seeks to challenge the alleged failures by
LCCC to conduct proper investigations into complaints of nuisance odour pursuant
to its statutory duties.
[3] In addition, the applicant challenges alleged failings on behalf of the
Northern Ireland Environment Agency (‘NIEA’) and the Department of Agriculture,
Environment and Rural Affairs (‘DAERA’) in relation to the fixing of emission
guideline values, limits or standards for the permit under which the site operates.
2
[4] The applicant says that all the respondents have failed to act appropriately to
secure abatement of the nuisance which has interfered with her right to family and
private life secured by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(‘ECHR’).
[5] The applicant’s case has undergone significant revision and refinement
during the course of the proceedings, claims in relation to breach of Article 2 ECHR
and various other statutory duties having been abandoned.
The Applicant’s Evidence
[6] The applicant lives 1.25 miles from the site. She states that she has been
plagued by nuisance odour emanating from the site since it opened in November
2006. She describes this as being a rotten egg smell which occurs very regularly. She
ascribes her headaches, runny nose, watering eyes and nausea to the noxious odour.
As a result, the applicant says she is forced to seal herself indoors and is unable to
enjoy her garden which has had an adverse effect on her mental health. This
situation has been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. In order to attain some
respite from the smell, the applicant stays at a different property over the weekends
[7] Other local residents have made similar complaints. Mairead Connolly lives
in the Mount Eagles area which is within the Belfast City Council (‘BCC’) district.
The site sits within the district of LCCC but is only some 550 metres from the
boundary with the BCC district. She has deposed to her experience of the odour
emanating from the site and her particular concerns about the health of her children.
Ms Connolly was involved with officials from BCC and NIEA and this led to an
abatement notice being served by BCC on 27 April 2021. Despite this, she states that
no improvement has occurred.
[8] The court has also had the benefit of affidavit evidence from other residents
who recount their experiences with the noxious odour and the impact which it has
had on their family lives and wellbeing.
[9] Following the first instance decision in R (Mathew Richards) v Environment
Agency [2021] EWHC 2501 (Admin), the solicitors acting for the applicant made
contact with Dr Ian Sinha, a consultant respiratory paediatrician based at Alder Hey
Children’s Hospital in Liverpool. Dr Sinha had provided expert evidence to the
court in the Richards case. At his suggestion, a survey was carried out by way of a
questionnaire sent to residents of the area and he prepared an expert report based in
part on the data contained in the survey.
[10] Dr Sinha’s areas of particular expertise are childhood asthma and neonatal
lung disease. Without examining any of the children living in the area or visiting the
site, Dr Sinha concluded:
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Palmer Agencies Limited Application for Judicial Review
...properly identified as toys and affixing the relevant CE marking. [36] In a series of recent cases, including Re McAleenon’s Application [2022] NIQB 39 and Re Weir’s Application [2023] NIQB 4, I have been critical of the use of expert evidence in judicial review proceedings. In this case, h......
-
Weir (Eddie) and Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists Application for Judicial Review
...from a purported expert which stepped completely outside the permissible parameters 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 r......