Key Facts
- •Ms McAleenon experienced noxious fumes and odours from a nearby landfill site, impacting her health and well-being.
- •She brought judicial review proceedings against public bodies (LCCC, NIEA, Department) for failing to take appropriate action.
- •The public bodies argued Ms McAleenon had adequate alternative remedies: private prosecution or nuisance claim against the landfill site owner.
- •The High Court rejected this defence; the Court of Appeal accepted it, also suggesting a complaint to the Ombudsman.
- •The landfill site is now closed, but the possibility of future gas emissions remains.
Legal Principles
Suitable Alternative Remedy Principle
R (Glencore Energy UK Ltd) v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2017] EWCA Civ 1716; [2017] 4 WLR 213
Judicial Review Focus on Lawfulness of Public Authority Actions
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014
Article 8 ECHR (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life)
European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1998
Ombudsman's Role Supplementary to Judicial Review
R v Monmouth District Council, Ex p Jones (1985) 53 P & CR 108
Duty of Candour for Public Authorities
Implicit in judicial review principles
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the claim based on suitable alternative remedies. The available alternatives did not address the core issue of the regulators' failure to fulfill their public law duties. The court should have considered the merits of the claim.
Case remitted to Court of Appeal.
To consider the merits of Ms McAleenon’s claim against the decision of Humphreys J.
Rejection of 'academic claim' argument.
The possibility of future gas emissions from the landfill site remains, rendering the claim not academic.