EPA loses claim over Greenstar accounts

The Environmental Protection Agency has lost its High Court claim that €12m in accounts of companies of waste group Greenstar can only be used towards the costs of closure and aftercare of landfills.

Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan rejected that claim yesterday in her judgment on a key preliminary issue raised in two separate legal actions.

The issue arose after Bank of Ireland, as agent for a syndicate of lenders to Greenstar, transferred €12m in 2012 from various accounts of Greenstar companies to set against outstanding debts of some €83.2m.

The EPA had argued provisions of the Waste Management Act 1996 meant monies collected as “gate fees” for waste disposal in landfills and retained in an account could only be used for the purpose of paying for closure, restoration, remediation and aftercare of the relevant landfill for a period of 30 years.

The monies were not available to Greenstar, as holder of a license under the 1996 act, to invest, spend, charge or otherwise use in any form or manner, the EPA argued.

The preliminary issue arose in two separate cases. The first was by the EPA against various Greenstar companies, including Greenstar Holdings Ltd (partly in receivership), Greenstar Ltd (in receivership), KTK Landfill Ltd, receiver David Carson, and Bank of Ireland.

In the second case, brought by CLM Properties Ltd against Greenstar Holdings, KTK Landfill, BoI and Mr Carson, CLM alleged it was owed some €3m for remediation and aftercare works at Greenstar landfills.

The judge ruled the EU landfill and framework directives do not require member states to enact laws which restrict a landfill operator like Greenstar, which has been paid waste charges, using some or all of those monies for purposes other than the closure, restoration, remediation and aftercare of the landfills concerned.

Any such restriction must be in precise terms but there was nothing in Section 53 of the 1996 act to justify a finding that it imposes a restriction on the use to which a landfill operator could put part of the charges collected by it, she said.

Given her findings, the judge ruled there was no need to refer issues concerning interpretation of the EU directives to the European Court of Justice for preliminary ruling.