A businessman who was jailed for nine weeks for contempt of court after the local council had his unauthorised waste collection operation shut down has failed in his appeal over a High Court action he took against another waste firm.

Jim Ferry, whose company operated the Ferry Refuse Collection at Rossbraken, Co Donegal, brought proceedings against John Caulderbanks trading as D&M Services, and D&M Environmental Services Ltd trading as DM Waste, Labbadish, Manorcunningham, Letterkenny, Co Donegal.

Mr Ferry, whose business was shut down in April 2017 as a result of High Court proceedings by Donegal County Council, was sent to prison for nine weeks in June 2019 for failing to comply with a court order to disclose his financial circumstances.

The Caulderbanks/D&M firms were hired by the council to clean up and remove waste from Mr Ferry’s waste business site.

Recycling

Mr Ferry claimed the Caulderbanks/D&M respondents had been operating their own waste recycling storage business in breach of the planning code and it had been “unauthorised” since in or about July 2018.

Mr Ferry felt aggrieved by what he considered to be double standards on the part of the council in its treatment of him as distinct from its treatment of the respondents.

He sought orders under planning legislation prohibiting the respondents from continuing an unauthorised development at their site, prohibiting them from further development of it and prohibiting the existence and use of previously permitted buildings as a waste facility.

The respondents opposed his application. They argued they had operated their facility for some 30 years and their planning situation was authorised until a difficulty arose in 2018 and efforts were made to regularise it.

The High Court found that even if a shed on the respondents’ site was identified as unauthorised, no order should be made on the order sought by Mr Ferry in relation to that shed.

Circumstances

In those circumstances, the High Court adjourned Mr Ferry’s proceedings for a year to enable the respondents to regularise the situation with the planning authorities.

Mr Ferry appealed, claiming, among other things, the adjournment, without an immediate order, did not achieve a just balance of interests in the enforcement of the planning code.

The respondents opposed the appeal.