Court upholds challenge on Cork waste collection

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld a challenge by an alderman on Cork Corporation to the corporation's decision to introduce …

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld a challenge by an alderman on Cork Corporation to the corporation's decision to introduce a "sticker" system for collection of household waste in Cork.

By a two-to-one majority the three-judge court quashed the decision to implement the sticker system which, introduced on wheelie bins in May 2000, enabled the corporation to establish who had not paid refuse charges or who had secured a waiver. Those who had not paid would not have their refuse collected.

Alderman Con O'Connell of Hillview Estate, Tramore Road, Cork, had challenged the sticker system unsuccessfully in the High Court and appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

He agreed the corporation had an obligation to collect waste and accepted people must pay charges. However, he argued that, while those who failed to pay might be sued for a debt, the corporation was not entitled to fail to collect their waste.

READ MORE

He also complained that the corporation did not have a right to purposely create a health hazard by not collecting waste when a legal remedy was available to it.

Giving the Supreme Court majority decision, with which Mr Justice Hardiman agreed, Mr Justice Geoghegan overturned the High Court's refusal. He also declared that if householders chose not to make the required payment, the corporation had ordinary debt collection remedies. Mr Justice Geoghegan noted that criteria existed for exempting a householder from having to pay the waste collection charges and Mr O'Connell himself had been exempted. The judge also accepted Mr O'Connell had a public interest in ensuring the corporatio was not acting unlawfully in its waste collection procedures.

The court was only concerned whether the corporation was exempt from collecting or arranging for the collection of household waste in the absence of the appropriate sticker, he said.

In her minority judgment, Ms Justice Denham said the corporation was not in breach of its statutory duty, nor had it used its discretionary power for an improper purpose.