In the matter of an application by Noeleen McAleenon for Judicial Review No 2

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0201

Parties

Appellant(s)

Noeleen McAleenon

Respondent(s)

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

(1) Northern Ireland Environment Agency (2) The Minister, Department of Agriculture, Environment & Rural Affairs

Issue

(1) Is a council’s duty to take such steps as are “reasonably practicable” to investigate nuisance under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (“the 2011 Act”) objective? (2) Do regulatory duties to eliminate or minimise harm caused by pollution include a duty to assess whether harm is caused by a particular form of emission? (3) Has there been a breach of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) protections on the basis of action taken or not taken by the public authorities?

Facts

This is a second appeal relating to the regulation of a nuisance odour and pollution arising from Mullaghglass Landfill Site (“the site”). The appellant previously lived in Milltown, a district of the LCCC area. The site is 2,300m from Milltown and within the LCCC area. The site no longer accepts municipal black bin waste, but the extraction of landfill gas from boreholes drilled on the site continues. Hydrogen sulphide (“H2S”) can be a significant part of landfill gas causing smell. The appellant has suffered from odour in recent years, to which she attributes a runny nose and mild headaches, and her sleep suffers as a result. She believes the site to be the source of the odour. The relevant statutory authorities are LCCC, NIEA and DAERA (together “the respondents”). The appellant is of the view that they should have utilised their powers, conferred by statute, to take steps to address the odour and protect her and others’ rights under domestic law and article 8 ECHR. The appellant brought judicial review proceedings claiming that the respondents had failed to comply with their legal duties in relation to odour and pollution emanating from the site. After a hearing in April 2022, Humphreys J dismissed the application. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The respondents cross appealed, raising the issue of whether there was an alternative remedy to judicial review available to the appellant. In November 2022, the Court of Appeal heard argument on the cross appeal issue but not on the merits of the claim. Holding that the appellant had an effective alternative remedy available to her, the Court of Appeal dismissed the case. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. After a hearing in June 2024, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred by concluding that the appellant had an effective alternative remedy available to her: [2024] UKSC 31 (“McAleenon No 1”). The Court of Appeal should have considered whether the appellant had good grounds of appeal against the decision of Humphreys J on the merits of her claim. The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal for this to be done. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of Humphreys J. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

16 December 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top