Cages for old electrical items at retailers being removed in dispute with contractor

High Court Reporters

Cage containers for waste electrical goods at certain retail stores and recycling facilities have been removed in a dispute with a firm which recently lost the contract for the service, the High Court has heard.

The cages are provided at electrical stores and local authority facilities to allow members of the public to safely dispose of old electrical items, including waste batteries.

On Tuesday, Mr Justice Brian Cregan granted recycling permit holder, European Recycling Platform (ERP) Ireland DAC, an interim injunction restraining a third party contractor, Electrical Waste Management Ltd (EWM), from withdrawing its collection and recycling service in the Fingal, Meath, Monaghan, Cavan and Louth areas before May 2 next.

The injunction application was made by Declan McGrath SC, on behalf of ERP, on a one-side only represented basis and was made returnable to this Friday.

ERP is one of two companies in the State operating with a permit from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications under EU regulations governing the disposal of waste electrical items.

European Recycling is responsible for around 33 per cent of the market and says it is a non-for-profit organisation which is precluded from paying out any dividends.

Since 2012, ERP has engaged the defendant under contract to provide the collection and recycling service and it says the two companies enjoyed a good working professional relationship.

In an affidavit seeking the injunction, ERP general manager, James Burgess, said since the dispute began he had been able to secure an alternative continuing service for Kerry and Clare but, despite strenuous efforts, he had been unable to do so for the north eastern area of the country.

Since EWM was informed six weeks ago that it had been unsuccessful in a tender competition held by ERP for the services, Mr Burgess said the defendant had taken a series of steps "with the intention and effect of causing serious loss and damage" to his company.

These included purporting to terminate the agreement between the parties without the requisite period of notice, withdrawing services, and making false statements about the provision of services by it, he said.

Last November, ERP invited tenders for the provision of the services. In January EWM was informed it had not been successful. It was notified that under its contract there would be a 90-day period for the orderly cessation of services.

However, Mr Burgess said, EWM said it was giving just 30 days notice and also demanded the payment of some €575,000 from ERP which it said was overdue.

On February 24th, various retailers and local authorities informed ERP that the defendant was removing collection services from certain sites.

Mr Burgess said the defendant was intent on trying to "cause maximum difficulties" because it was well aware that a 30 day notice period would not give ERP sufficient time to find an alternative provider and that the cage containers are not readily available.

He also said the defendant had also demanded the immediate collection of batteries and electrical items from its premises at Tay Lane, Greenogue, Rathcoole, in Dublin, or it would apply a storage fee.

Mr Burgess is concerned the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications could serve notice to terminate the permit and this would have "a disastrous impact" on ERP's ability to secure future custom and deal with local authorities, or design future collection facilities.

He believes the true reason behind the withdrawal of services arises from the defendant’s failure to secure a renewal of the contract.

By way of retaliation, the defendant had “set out to damage the commercial operations and reputational standing” of ERP in the industry as much as possible, he said.