A judicial review claim against the regulators of a waste disposal site would be more ‘speedy and simple’ than a private prosecution or a civil claim in nuisance, five Supreme Court justices have ruled. 

In Application by Noeleen McAleenon for Judicial Review the UK’s highest court said the Court of Appeal ‘erred in its understanding of what is involved’ in a public law claim when it concluded a woman from Lisburn, Northern Ireland - who wanted to stop toxic emissions from a local landfill site - had a better alternate remedy in the magistrates' court or the county court.

Noeleen McAleenon claimed that from early 2018, she and her family have been affected by unpleasant odours coming from the site, operated by Alpha Resource Management Ltd. McAleenon commenced judicial review proceedings in 2021 against various public bodies who she argued had failed to act in compliance with her human rights to a private and family life by omitting to take ‘appropriate’ regulatory enforcement action over the site.

The Court of Appeal dismissed her action, ruling it had been ‘used as the excuse to commence more complex judicial review proceedings against the regulators rather than proceeding directly against the alleged tortfeasor(s)’.

But the Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, remitted the case back to the Court of Appeal so it could be considered on its merits.

Lord Sales and Lord Stephens said: 'With respect, the Court of Appeal fell into error in its assessment of the position in relation to the judicial review claim. Judicial review is a comparatively speedy and simple process, involving significantly less time and cost than would be likely to be required for a trial in a private prosecution or in a civil claim in nuisance. 

‘There is no good reason why Ms McAleenon should be expected to take on the additional burden associated with bringing such proceedings, in place of the comparatively less expensive course of bringing the judicial review claim she chose to bring against the defendant regulators.'