David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 329: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of legal actions relating to Haulbowline taken by or against his Department since it took over control of the site in 2003; the cost of each action to the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43030/10]

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Under a Government Decision of June 2003, my Department was charged inter alia with coordinating all legal actions in relation to the former Irish Ispat site at Haulbowline, Co. Cork. Accordingly, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage & Local Government has been a party to a number of legal cases relating to the site.

In June 2001, Irish ISPAT Limited went into voluntary liquidation and Mr. Ray Jackson of KPMG was appointed liquidator of the company. In June 2002, Mr. Jackson initiated proceedings under section 290 of the Companies Act 1963 to disclaim both the lease in respect of the site and the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) licence in respect of the operation of the steelworks.

The State, acting through the Ministers for the Environment, Heritage & Local Government; Defence; and Communications, Marine and Natural Resources took counter-proceedings under sections 57 and 58 of the Waste Management Act 1996 seeking orders requiring the liquidator to carry out remediation works (section 57) or to have the costs of the remediation included as a debt against the liquidation (section 58).

In February 2003, the liquidator exercised a break clause in the lease, and gave three months' notice. He was constrained to remain on site until 18 June 2003 by way of an interlocutory injunction pending the removal of radioactive materials, at which point the site reverted to the State.

The liquidator successfully disclaimed the IPC licence as the judgment in the High Court on 29 July 2004 found that, as a matter of fact, the IPC licence was granted after the company had ceased production of steel and that the conditions of the licence could not be applied retrospectively. The State was also unsuccessful in its attempts to have the remediation costs enforced as costs of the liquidation.

In 2009, the Hammond Lane Metal Company Ltd initiated proceedings against the Minister for the Environment, Heritage & Local Government in the High Court (Commercial) seeking to recover €8.1m plus further damages to be awarded at the discretion of the Court in respect of invoices relating to a series of unauthorised works by sub-contractors of Hammond Lane in early summer 2008 and for which my Department refused payment. Without admission of liability on the part of the Minister, full and final settlement of all issues, claims and disputes made in the proceedings in the sum of €1.8m plus costs was agreed in April 2010 and accordingly the proceedings were struck out. Plaintiff's costs were in the sum of €378,784.25.

Information on the State's costs in cases such as this is not available in my Department as these are covered by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.